GOP chairman = terrorist?

[Anonymous]

Just because people will react like deranged insects we shouldn’t try to enact laws for the public good??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just because people will react like deranged insects we shouldn’t try to enact laws for the public good??

Spoiled children is more like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When you poke a hornet's nest, you can't be shocked when the hornets get angry.



So don't poke hornet's nests.

F you bully. A lot of us are fed up with white men trying to intimidate the rest of us. Fed up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you poke a hornet's nest, you can't be shocked when the hornets get angry.



So don't poke hornet's nests.

F you bully. A lot of us are fed up with white men trying to intimidate the rest of us. Fed up.

+1

Don’t act like a hysterical nut job and threaten someone just because of a difference in political opinion. Aren’t you snowflakes always whining about that?

Grow up and learn how to legislate like an adult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you poke a hornet's nest, you can't be shocked when the hornets get angry.



So don't poke hornet's nests.

F you bully. A lot of us are fed up with white men trying to intimidate the rest of us. Fed up.

Wow that's pretty racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You left out broader context.

You might also be unaware that about half the population in Virginia now lives in gun "sanctuary" counties, and that some of these counties are starting government sanctioned militias. All if this started not just from Del Levine's bill, but from fellow delegates who wanted the state police to go door to door and confiscate weapons.

You have a lot of people who are incredibly upset by heated rhetoric.

I can only hope cooler heads prevail as Del Levine's legislation is submitted again next year.

You think there's a broader context that justifies this? Please elaborate, with more than, "people are upset."

Also, gun sanctuary counties are meaningless.

I'm merely explaining that there is considerable pushback and county government so angry that they are willing to deputize and train militias in response to fears that the national guard was going to be called out to take firearms. That was actually a position advocated by some Virgina delegates and eventually answered by the VA national guard.

Apparently you weren't following the 75 page thread last month on the gun lobby day.

You now have a lot of newly energised people who are more inclined to vote GOP next time.

So, to be clear, you do *not* think that there is a "broader context" that justifies this behavior?

And you concede, that the "gun sanctuary county" nonsense is meaningless?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You left out broader context.

You might also be unaware that about half the population in Virginia now lives in gun "sanctuary" counties, and that some of these counties are starting government sanctioned militias. All if this started not just from Del Levine's bill, but from fellow delegates who wanted the state police to go door to door and confiscate weapons.

You have a lot of people who are incredibly upset by heated rhetoric.

I can only hope cooler heads prevail as Del Levine's legislation is submitted again next year.

You think there's a broader context that justifies this? Please elaborate, with more than, "people are upset."

Also, gun sanctuary counties are meaningless.

I'm merely explaining that there is considerable pushback and county government so angry that they are willing to deputize and train militias in response to fears that the national guard was going to be called out to take firearms. That was actually a position advocated by some Virgina delegates and eventually answered by the VA national guard.

Apparently you weren't following the 75 page thread last month on the gun lobby day.

You now have a lot of newly energised people who are more inclined to vote GOP next time.

So, to be clear, you do *not* think that there is a "broader context" that justifies this behavior?

And you concede, that the "gun sanctuary county" nonsense is meaningless?

No I don't think the sanctuary county stuff is meaningless if you have a sherrif in that county that won't cooperate with state level enforcement or a Commonwealth attorney for enforcement. Not if you have a sherrif or county that has started a militia for that purpose.

Those things have happened already in a few rural counties. I can't concern the point when armed groups exist authorized by local government.



I think cooler heads are needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You left out broader context.

You might also be unaware that about half the population in Virginia now lives in gun "sanctuary" counties, and that some of these counties are starting government sanctioned militias. All if this started not just from Del Levine's bill, but from fellow delegates who wanted the state police to go door to door and confiscate weapons.

You have a lot of people who are incredibly upset by heated rhetoric.

I can only hope cooler heads prevail as Del Levine's legislation is submitted again next year.

You think there's a broader context that justifies this? Please elaborate, with more than, "people are upset."

Also, gun sanctuary counties are meaningless.

I'm merely explaining that there is considerable pushback and county government so angry that they are willing to deputize and train militias in response to fears that the national guard was going to be called out to take firearms. That was actually a position advocated by some Virgina delegates and eventually answered by the VA national guard.

Apparently you weren't following the 75 page thread last month on the gun lobby day.

You now have a lot of newly energised people who are more inclined to vote GOP next time.

So, to be clear, you do *not* think that there is a "broader context" that justifies this behavior?

And you concede, that the "gun sanctuary county" nonsense is meaningless?

No I don't think the sanctuary county stuff is meaningless if you have a sherrif in that county that won't cooperate with state level enforcement or a Commonwealth attorney for enforcement. Not if you have a sherrif or county that has started a militia for that purpose.

Those things have happened already in a few rural counties. I can't concern the point when armed groups exist authorized by local government.



I think cooler heads are needed.

I can't conceed the point, not concern the point.

[Anonymous]

These gun nuts are so whiny. Also, they’re always threatening people with guns. Not a great look.

[Anonymous]

Also, you idiots, the local police have a tank and we have the biggest, baddest army in the world. If the government ever decides to come for your stupid assault rifle, it will. There may have been a moment when armed citizenry could defend themselves against a tyrannical government but that moment was more than a century ago.

You’re much more Waco than Revolution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you poke a hornet's nest, you can't be shocked when the hornets get angry.



So don't poke hornet's nests.

F you bully. A lot of us are fed up with white men trying to intimidate the rest of us. Fed up.

+1

Don’t act like a hysterical nut job and threaten someone just because of a difference in political opinion. Aren’t you snowflakes always whining about that?

Grow up and learn how to legislate like an adult.

It's more than just polical opinion.

Del Levine and others in his caucus want to jail and send agents of the Commonwealth into people's homes and inflict violence upon them.

People who haven't hurt anyone feel threatened by this, so you are going to see a reaction. Preferably a nonviolent reaction for now since none of these measures are law.

In Del Levine's case, he should now understand how his opponents feel.

No, he doesn't. Stop with your hysterics. The ban was for future purchases. And his goal is to REDUCE violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you poke a hornet's nest, you can't be shocked when the hornets get angry.



So don't poke hornet's nests.

F you bully. A lot of us are fed up with white men trying to intimidate the rest of us. Fed up.

+1

Don’t act like a hysterical nut job and threaten someone just because of a difference in political opinion. Aren’t you snowflakes always whining about that?

Grow up and learn how to legislate like an adult.

It's more than just polical opinion.

Del Levine and others in his caucus want to jail and send agents of the Commonwealth into people's homes and inflict violence upon them.

People who haven't hurt anyone feel threatened by this, so you are going to see a reaction. Preferably a nonviolent reaction for now since none of these measures are law.

In Del Levine's case, he should now understand how his opponents feel.

What do you think the loser in the picture wants to do? He wants to force his political beliefs by gun point on everyone else. This is the type of nut job who should never own a gun

[Anonymous]

It's so strange to me how gun nuts (not gun owners, but nuts) always start from "I'm a law abiding citizen" and jump immediately to "and I'll murder you if you piss me off."

It is very clear to see why people want to regulate you, you nutjobs. You're proudly stating that you don't own a gun for hunting or for home protection, but for getting your way by threat of violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These gun nuts are so whiny. Also, they’re always threatening people with guns. Not a great look.

and now they are the first to that they are being bullied when people react to their attempts at bullying. Such man babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When you poke a hornet's nest, you can't be shocked when the hornets get angry.



So don't poke hornet's nests.

Stop justifying stalking. Picketing someone’s private home in that manner is illegal.