75,000 Pro-Gun Demonstrators in Richmond For "Lobby Day"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Like I have been saying from the start, SB16 (Assault weapon ban) had no chance of passing.


https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Senate-committee-strikes-assault-weapons-bill-advances-other-proposed-gun-laws-566941011.html

How about HB 961, SB 12’s tougher cousin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like I have been saying from the start, SB16 (Assault weapon ban) had no chance of passing.


https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Senate-committee-strikes-assault-weapons-bill-advances-other-proposed-gun-laws-566941011.html

How about HB 961, SB 12’s tougher cousin?

Looks like it won't be touched this legislative session or anytime soon. SB16 didn't even have any Democrat support once it came time to the floor, so you can bet this will be an even longer shot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:”Virginia lawmakers voted Friday to ban firearms at the state Capitol”

Reason and civilization - 1, Beer bellies playing soldiers in woods - 0


https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/virginia-lawmakers-set-vote-capitol-gun-ban-68194524

I’m sure you thought really hard to conjure up your cute post, but these childish stereotypes don’t reflect reality.

No it was really easy really. Most of the cowardly fat dudes you see in the media wearing ill fitting tactical gear they bought from online marketplace barely cover their beer bellies. Most of them have not spent an hour on a combat zone or even in basic training. That’s you average ar-15 extended mag supporter.

What is an "ar-15 extended mag"?

Serious question. What is a "normal" ar-15 mag? What makes one an "extended" mag?

Can you shed some light on this? Because not everyone understands this stuff and some of these terms.

Not the PP but I will answer. A normal AR15 magazine holds 30 rounds. I would say extended is anything above that.

Oh, ok thank you.

Another question, if you don't mind: are all guns that use mags designed to use the same capacity? Frankly, I can't see how that would be possible anyway given that guns are of different sizes. But what decides how many shells a gun holds in the mag?

There is a different magazine for almost model of handgun. Standard capacity handgun magazines are usually between 6 and 20 rounds depending on the model. Rifles are usually 10-30 although there are exceptions. The size of the bullet and size of the gun determine capacity in a handgun, in a rifle the magazine size matters most.

I think 30 shells is enough for an upper limit, if that is what the gun was designed originally to hold. Or whatever the original design capacity was. I'm ok with the idea of a gun that was designed to hold 15 or 30 shells. I'm not ok with the idea of a gun that was designed to hold 30, but now holds 100 or 200 or more.

Is that a reasonable compromise?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:”Virginia lawmakers voted Friday to ban firearms at the state Capitol”

Reason and civilization - 1, Beer bellies playing soldiers in woods - 0


https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/virginia-lawmakers-set-vote-capitol-gun-ban-68194524

I’m sure you thought really hard to conjure up your cute post, but these childish stereotypes don’t reflect reality.

No it was really easy really. Most of the cowardly fat dudes you see in the media wearing ill fitting tactical gear they bought from online marketplace barely cover their beer bellies. Most of them have not spent an hour on a combat zone or even in basic training. That’s you average ar-15 extended mag supporter.

What is an "ar-15 extended mag"?



Serious question. What is a "normal" ar-15 mag? What makes one an "extended" mag?

Can you shed some light on this? Because not everyone understands this stuff and some of these terms.

Not the PP but I will answer. A normal AR15 magazine holds 30 rounds. I would say extended is anything above that.

Oh, ok thank you.

Another question, if you don't mind: are all guns that use mags designed to use the same capacity? Frankly, I can't see how that would be possible anyway given that guns are of different sizes. But what decides how many shells a gun holds in the mag?

There is a different magazine for almost model of handgun. Standard capacity handgun magazines are usually between 6 and 20 rounds depending on the model. Rifles are usually 10-30 although there are exceptions. The size of the bullet and size of the gun determine capacity in a handgun, in a rifle the magazine size matters most.

I think 30 shells is enough for an upper limit, if that is what the gun was designed originally to hold. Or whatever the original design capacity was. I'm ok with the idea of a gun that was designed to hold 15 or 30 shells. I'm not ok with the idea of a gun that was designed to hold 30, but now holds 100 or 200 or more.

Is that a reasonable compromise?

Yeah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like I have been saying from the start, SB16 (Assault weapon ban) had no chance of passing.


https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Senate-committee-strikes-assault-weapons-bill-advances-other-proposed-gun-laws-566941011.html

How about HB 961, SB 12’s tougher cousin?

+1.

I also predicted the AWB was dead on arrival. Some VA Dems were in the news today talking about how none of the AWB bills are unreasonable. This is something even the Brady people recognized a long time ago.

I agree with the idea above that a standard capacity AR magazine is 30 rounds and anything above that is “high-capacity.” Banning 50 or 100 round mags likely won’t do anything (they’re a novelty, they jam, they weigh a TON, and they have been used in a shooting homicide that I know about), but I could support it as a reasonable compromise. Probably a lot of gun owners would.

[Anonymous]

^
are *reasonable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These types always vastly overestimate their turnout. I'm guessing it will be closer to 750 than 75,000.

This. Remember a few years ago when the reports estimated thousands pro confederate monuments and flagged would show to support keeping the monuments in Monument Avenue and about 10 showed up but 1,000 counter protestors showed up. The 10 protestors then ran away but their car wouldn’t start (because they could all fit in one car). So much negative press against RVA when in fact those 10 protestors were all from out of state while the counter protestors were locals. No Antifa.

No way will there be 75,000 pro gun protestors, or 7,500 or even 750. My money says under 20.

LOL. Its not even lobby day and we routinely get more people than that. Care to place a wager Sally? That is if actually do have your own source of income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:”Virginia lawmakers voted Friday to ban firearms at the state Capitol”

Reason and civilization - 1, Beer bellies playing soldiers in woods - 0


https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/virginia-lawmakers-set-vote-capitol-gun-ban-68194524

I’m sure you thought really hard to conjure up your cute post, but these childish stereotypes don’t reflect reality.

No it was really easy really. Most of the cowardly fat dudes you see in the media wearing ill fitting tactical gear they bought from online marketplace barely cover their beer bellies. Most of them have not spent an hour on a combat zone or even in basic training. That’s you average ar-15 extended mag supporter.

What is an "ar-15 extended mag"?

Serious question. What is a "normal" ar-15 mag? What makes one an "extended" mag?

Can you shed some light on this? Because not everyone understands this stuff and some of these terms.

Not the PP but I will answer. A normal AR15 magazine holds 30 rounds. I would say extended is anything above that.

Oh, ok thank you.

Another question, if you don't mind: are all guns that use mags designed to use the same capacity? Frankly, I can't see how that would be possible anyway given that guns are of different sizes. But what decides how many shells a gun holds in the mag?

There is a different magazine for almost model of handgun. Standard capacity handgun magazines are usually between 6 and 20 rounds depending on the model. Rifles are usually 10-30 although there are exceptions. The size of the bullet and size of the gun determine capacity in a handgun, in a rifle the magazine size matters most.

I think 30 shells is enough for an upper limit, if that is what the gun was designed originally to hold. Or whatever the original design capacity was. I'm ok with the idea of a gun that was designed to hold 15 or 30 shells. I'm not ok with the idea of a gun that was designed to hold 30, but now holds 100 or 200 or more.

Is that a reasonable compromise?

Have you ever tried to lift up 200 rounds? For the average person, that makes most rifles quite heavy, unwieldy and inaccurate. You could ban it, but it won't change much of anything. The only way you're going to shoot comfortably and accurately is lying prone on the ground or on a rest of some kind.

Most infantrymen aren't carrying 200 round magazines, only a dedicated person on a fireteam does that with a very heavy squad automated weapon. It has too many downsides to be practical.

Like I said, you could ban magazines of that size, but almost no one uses them to begin with so it doesn't really solve a problem.

[Anonymous]

VA governor has declared a state of emergency ahead of the rally:
"The threats, which are considered credible by law enforcement, come from mainstream channels and alternative dark web channels used by violent groups and white nationalists from outside of Virginia, the governor said."

We decided not to go to Richmond this weekend because of this rally. Losing out on tourism for the long weekend.

[Anonymous]

Here's a thoughtful article on this:

Northam Declares State Of Emergency In Virginia Because "Armed Militia Groups Plan To Storm The Capitol"
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/15/2020 - 19:45
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/northam-declares-state-emergency-virginia-because-armed-militia-groups-plan-storm-capitol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a thoughtful article on this:

Northam Declares State Of Emergency In Virginia Because "Armed Militia Groups Plan To Storm The Capitol"
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/15/2020 - 19:45
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/northam-declares-state-emergency-virginia-because-armed-militia-groups-plan-storm-capitol

Written by “Tyler Durden”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a thoughtful article on this:

Northam Declares State Of Emergency In Virginia Because "Armed Militia Groups Plan To Storm The Capitol"
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/15/2020 - 19:45
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/northam-declares-state-emergency-virginia-because-armed-militia-groups-plan-storm-capitol

Written by “Tyler Durden”?

'm guessing you never read zero hedge before. The staff always posts as Tyler Durden of fight club fame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VA governor has declared a state of emergency ahead of the rally:
"The threats, which are considered credible by law enforcement, come from mainstream channels and alternative dark web channels used by violent groups and white nationalists from outside of Virginia, the governor said."

We decided not to go to Richmond this weekend because of this rally. Losing out on tourism for the long weekend.

Yep as we know, ANTIFA and other out of state actors have been on the radar fir months now regarding lobby day.

And nazis and gun nuts from other states. It was stupid to invite them, it's like no one on the right learned a single thing from Charlottesville.
Glad the governor is taking proactive action.

I'd say the govenor is actually trying to re-create charolttesville. Have you looked at the plans for ingress and egress? It's going to be a cluster...

I'd argue he's actually doing a his best to provide the worst optics possible for gun rights advocates and put the Dems in the most favorable position as possible, just like Charlottesville.

Now he does has a questionable leg to stand on given the authority he is citing is improper.

No, it's not. And he doesn't want anymore people killed or hurt by crazies imported from other states.

Y'all should have thought about this before busing in people from I don't know where and keeping it for Virginians by Virginians. I don't want to see gun supporters hurt, and busing in God knows who is a good way to do just that.

[Anonymous]

Northam acknowledged that the organizers had been planning the rally for some time. “I believe them when they say this is a peaceful event — that’s what democracy is,” said Northam. “Unfortunately, they have unleashed something much larger, something they may not be able to control.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it so important to you to own the weapon that has been used to create so much carnage and murder schoolchildren?

oh the hysterics.

20 1st graders were blown apart in their classrooms with one of these weapons - The fact that you write that off is disgusting to me

+1

Disgusting POS

Freedom isn't free.

Bad stuff can happen when people are free to make choices.

So those 20 slaughtered children were worth it to you for your “freedom”?

How many would be too many for you personally? Is there a limit? 100? 1000? 1000000? No limit?

If you want my complete and utter honesty? No limit because I personally value maximum freedom, which means people are allowed to make stupid choices.

It's not because I'm heartless. We allow for 10s of thousands to die each year for car accidents yet we don't outlaw driving. If you think I'm a bad person, I'm ok with that.

Too bad it wasn’t your kid who was killed instead of the child of someone not willing to make that trade. You know, price of freedom and all.

I would be ok with that. Others might not be.

I think people should be able to make bad and "wrong" decisions. Freedom means not being protected from bad choices even if they are preventable. Not everyone wants or can handle freedom. That is self evident from the discussion here. Like I said, if that makes me a bad person I fully take responsibility for that.

Does it ever concern you that your norms are so very different than most other people? You’d let your own child die if that meant you could keep your guns. Not many people would say that. Do you feel disconnected from typical emotions?

And would you let your child die to block universal background checks? Or restrictions on magazine capacity?

Or is “maximum freedom” the only important thing to you? Do you actually have children?

Yes I have children. I'm a libertarian, so yes maximum freedom, and lack of coercion is very important to me. I recognize that most people can't live their lives in such a fashion. It's entirely alien for most people.

Of course I have emotions, but rationality is of most importance to me. When I adopted rationality more than a decade ago, discovering that the only intelligent way to go through life was to base decisions on the preponderance of evidence, critically attacking ideas to improve thinking, and working to constantly remove assumptions from my analysis, it was akin to the conversion of Saul in Acts 9:18; scales falling from my eyes and seeing the world for how it really was for the first time. I never anticipated how painful it would be to see others remaining behind in Plato’s cave given my natural inclination to teach and help people.

If you think I'm nuts, thats fine, I have no desire to force you to my way of thinking, though it appears that you would force me to conform to your ideals. I'm an idealist, however I recognize that what works for me might be very unpleasant for you.

DP. I pity your children, having a parent who cares so little for them that he’d be fine if they were dead.

NP. The premise of your nonsense is total BS. You aren't going save anyone, just like Bill Clinton didnt save anyone with his assault weapon ban. Get off your ass and do something productive instead of trying to show how virtuous you are.

Oh?

CONCLUSION: Mass-shooting related homicides in the United States were reduced during the years of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994 to 2004.
Chapman S, et al. JAMA. 2016.
Fatal school shootings and the epidemiological context of firearm mortality in the United States.
Shultz JM, et al. Disaster Health. 2013.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/30188421/