76/95 VA counties declare 2A sanctuaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the person wanting to do away with all private gun ownership: Since you feel so strongly, why don't you start an organization to do this proper way set forth in the Constitution to eliminate the second amendment?

Even repealing the Second Amendment would not suffice to justify gun bans. Self-defense and defense against tyranny is a fundamental human right. Would you say it was ok to repeal the Thirteenth Amendment to reintroduce slavery?

See, they don;'t believe this, they believe only cops and the army should posses firearms.

FIFY

The second amendment grants the right of the militia to have arms. Read it. The Militia. A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. In other words, THE MILITARY. By extension, I'll say the police, too. The second amendment grants the right to have guns to the military. Not to stupid rednecks with ar15s.

Your personal hostility is scary. Have you seen someone about it?

And the militia is most decidedly not the military.

The militia is definitely the military. Do you even understand root words and language?

[Anonymous]

Self defense does not need to involve a gun

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Self defense does not need to involve a gun

A knife is a good option but it takes soooo much more training to be effective, so it isn't feasible for the average person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

conductor53 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So, you’re totally fine with young children being blown apart in their classrooms, huh? Or hundreds of people being shot from above at a concert? Or, you know, just going shopping at the local Walmart?

I want a better country than this. You should to.

Or I will just put you in the pro-dead 1st graders column

Ah, come on, guy! Just because someone enjoys shooting guns DOES NOT mean that he or she wants to see people killed. I've been shooting guns since I was 8 years old (68 years ago). I've never shot anyone, nor have I ever wanted to. Nor have I ever pointed a gun at anyone. I don't shoot animals, either (none of them has ever shot at me).
I like to shoot guns. That does not make me a murderer.

Do you support the common-sense legislation supported by the Brady campaign?
https://www.bradyunited.org/legislation

DP. Expanded background checks are fine but there must be mandatory upper limit. You can't make it a voluntary request to request that the FBI do their job. The FBI could simply "lose" a request and take forever. If three days aren't enough, make it enogh. Spend the money instead of increasing the backlog.

Extreme risk is a dead end. It makes the act of purchasing a gun is a reason to consider the person an extreme risk and therefore allow seizure. There is no limit on the "temporary" order. It's temporary until you petition or the court decides to cancel it. That's not what temporary means.

Ok. Mandatory upper limit.

How would you rework extreme risk?

Temporary orders can't be "temporary until challenged". Even the mentally ill have more right with respect to a temporary mental detention order in Virginia. You can't hold them indefinitely while trying to decide if they are a danger. You have essentially 72 hours. The act of purchasing a gun can't be the sole consideration of determining you are an extreme risk. This is a "second" background check. Didn't you already run a lengthy background check for up to two weeks?

Maybe there was a change after the background check. Maybe someone stopped taking their meds. Maybe someone thought it was OK to beat their wife and kids. Things change and we need a mechanism to remove guns from people who are a danger to others.

Temporary for one month and then reassess? Give some workable solutions here.

The idea that you think you need a gun at all should be prima facia evidence of mental illness, and should be a disqualifier in and of itself.

Self defense is a natural impulse and a natural right. The right to self defense necessarily entails the right to the efficacious means of exercising that right should it become necessary. Only firearms provide the weak victim with an effective means to defend against a strong assailant. Unreasoning fear of inanimate objects is a mental disorder.

No one said you couldn't defend yourself, don't be an idiot.

Just do it in a way that doesn't involve a gun or a weapon. I'm a devotee of martial arts myself. I don't need a gun to defend myself, my entire body is a weapon. You can do the same.

Which martial arts do you study?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The second amendment grants the right of the militia to have arms. Read it. The Militia. A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. In other words, THE MILITARY. By extension, I'll say the police, too. The second amendment grants the right to have guns to the military. Not to stupid rednecks with ar15s.

You are 100 percent wrong on this. It is YOU who has not read or understand the 2nd amendment. It clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It does not say that the "right of the militia", or "the right of the states". It says the right of the PEOPLE".

The prefatory clause referring to "A well-regulated militia..." gives us the reason for the amendment. It does not restrict the right enumerated in the second clause.

What about the 1st amendment, which gives "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Do you suppose that the framers of the constitution didn't mean you and I, but only the militia, or the states, or some government agency has that right?

Then there's the 4th amendment, which states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Does that right apply only to the states, or to the government? Hell, no. It applies to all of us....the PEOPLE.

Lastly, there's the 10th amendment, which clearly differentiates between the United States, the states themselves, and the people.

Our constitution is a lovely document. You ought to read it sometime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Self defense does not need to involve a gun

A knife is a good option but it takes soooo much more training to be effective, so it isn't feasible for the average person.

Knives will be bannned next. See London for an example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

conductor53 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So, you’re totally fine with young children being blown apart in their classrooms, huh? Or hundreds of people being shot from above at a concert? Or, you know, just going shopping at the local Walmart?

I want a better country than this. You should to.

Or I will just put you in the pro-dead 1st graders column

Ah, come on, guy! Just because someone enjoys shooting guns DOES NOT mean that he or she wants to see people killed. I've been shooting guns since I was 8 years old (68 years ago). I've never shot anyone, nor have I ever wanted to. Nor have I ever pointed a gun at anyone. I don't shoot animals, either (none of them has ever shot at me).
I like to shoot guns. That does not make me a murderer.

Do you support the common-sense legislation supported by the Brady campaign?
https://www.bradyunited.org/legislation

DP. Expanded background checks are fine but there must be mandatory upper limit. You can't make it a voluntary request to request that the FBI do their job. The FBI could simply "lose" a request and take forever. If three days aren't enough, make it enogh. Spend the money instead of increasing the backlog.

Extreme risk is a dead end. It makes the act of purchasing a gun is a reason to consider the person an extreme risk and therefore allow seizure. There is no limit on the "temporary" order. It's temporary until you petition or the court decides to cancel it. That's not what temporary means.

Ok. Mandatory upper limit.

How would you rework extreme risk?

Temporary orders can't be "temporary until challenged". Even the mentally ill have more right with respect to a temporary mental detention order in Virginia. You can't hold them indefinitely while trying to decide if they are a danger. You have essentially 72 hours. The act of purchasing a gun can't be the sole consideration of determining you are an extreme risk. This is a "second" background check. Didn't you already run a lengthy background check for up to two weeks?

Maybe there was a change after the background check. Maybe someone stopped taking their meds. Maybe someone thought it was OK to beat their wife and kids. Things change and we need a mechanism to remove guns from people who are a danger to others.

Temporary for one month and then reassess? Give some workable solutions here.

Thinks will ALWAYS change after the background check. You are hoping for an infinitly long background check. Someone on psychiatric medications shouldn't pass a background check in the first place. If things change, you can issue a temporary order but the order can be permanent until challenged. Otherwise, jurisdictions will simply issue temporary orders for anyone who purchases a gun. These orders have a lower bar since they don't go to trial, nothing needs to be proven. Easily abused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

conductor53 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So, you’re totally fine with young children being blown apart in their classrooms, huh? Or hundreds of people being shot from above at a concert? Or, you know, just going shopping at the local Walmart?

I want a better country than this. You should to.

Or I will just put you in the pro-dead 1st graders column

Ah, come on, guy! Just because someone enjoys shooting guns DOES NOT mean that he or she wants to see people killed. I've been shooting guns since I was 8 years old (68 years ago). I've never shot anyone, nor have I ever wanted to. Nor have I ever pointed a gun at anyone. I don't shoot animals, either (none of them has ever shot at me).
I like to shoot guns. That does not make me a murderer.

Do you support the common-sense legislation supported by the Brady campaign?
https://www.bradyunited.org/legislation

DP. Expanded background checks are fine but there must be mandatory upper limit. You can't make it a voluntary request to request that the FBI do their job. The FBI could simply "lose" a request and take forever. If three days aren't enough, make it enogh. Spend the money instead of increasing the backlog.

Extreme risk is a dead end. It makes the act of purchasing a gun is a reason to consider the person an extreme risk and therefore allow seizure. There is no limit on the "temporary" order. It's temporary until you petition or the court decides to cancel it. That's not what temporary means.

Ok. Mandatory upper limit.

How would you rework extreme risk?

Temporary orders can't be "temporary until challenged". Even the mentally ill have more right with respect to a temporary mental detention order in Virginia. You can't hold them indefinitely while trying to decide if they are a danger. You have essentially 72 hours. The act of purchasing a gun can't be the sole consideration of determining you are an extreme risk. This is a "second" background check. Didn't you already run a lengthy background check for up to two weeks?

Maybe there was a change after the background check. Maybe someone stopped taking their meds. Maybe someone thought it was OK to beat their wife and kids. Things change and we need a mechanism to remove guns from people who are a danger to others.

Temporary for one month and then reassess? Give some workable solutions here.

Thinks will ALWAYS change after the background check. You are hoping for an infinitly long background check. Someone on psychiatric medications shouldn't pass a background check in the first place. If things change, you can issue a temporary order but the order can be permanent until challenged. Otherwise, jurisdictions will simply issue temporary orders for anyone who purchases a gun. These orders have a lower bar since they don't go to trial, nothing needs to be proven. Easily abused.

Sorry. We don’t skip doing the right thing because it MIGHT be abused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Self defense does not need to involve a gun

A knife is a good option but it takes soooo much more training to be effective, so it isn't feasible for the average person.

Knives will be bannned next. See London for an example.

This actually scares me, especially after NYC has enacted ridiculous knife laws. . KNIVES ARE FREAKING TOOLS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The second amendment grants the right of the militia to have arms. Read it. The Militia. A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. In other words, THE MILITARY. By extension, I'll say the police, too. The second amendment grants the right to have guns to the military. Not to stupid rednecks with ar15s.

You are 100 percent wrong on this. It is YOU who has not read or understand the 2nd amendment. It clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It does not say that the "right of the militia", or "the right of the states". It says the right of the PEOPLE".

The prefatory clause referring to "A well-regulated militia..." gives us the reason for the amendment. It does not restrict the right enumerated in the second clause.

What about the 1st amendment, which gives "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Do you suppose that the framers of the constitution didn't mean you and I, but only the militia, or the states, or some government agency has that right?

Then there's the 4th amendment, which states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Does that right apply only to the states, or to the government? Hell, no. It applies to all of us....the PEOPLE.

Lastly, there's the 10th amendment, which clearly differentiates between the United States, the states themselves, and the people.

Our constitution is a lovely document. You ought to read it sometime.

Blah blah blah word salad, TLDR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The second amendment grants the right of the militia to have arms. Read it. The Militia. A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. In other words, THE MILITARY. By extension, I'll say the police, too. The second amendment grants the right to have guns to the military. Not to stupid rednecks with ar15s.

You are 100 percent wrong on this. It is YOU who has not read or understand the 2nd amendment. It clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It does not say that the "right of the militia", or "the right of the states". It says the right of the PEOPLE".

The prefatory clause referring to "A well-regulated militia..." gives us the reason for the amendment. It does not restrict the right enumerated in the second clause.

What about the 1st amendment, which gives "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Do you suppose that the framers of the constitution didn't mean you and I, but only the militia, or the states, or some government agency has that right?

Then there's the 4th amendment, which states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Does that right apply only to the states, or to the government? Hell, no. It applies to all of us....the PEOPLE.

Lastly, there's the 10th amendment, which clearly differentiates between the United States, the states themselves, and the people.

Our constitution is a lovely document. You ought to read it sometime.

Blah blah blah word salad, TLDR.

Nah you read it.

[Anonymous]

I got a good deal on 12 lower receivers from Proven Arms in Woodbridge that I'm gifting to friends and family. It is definitely a great feeling giving gifts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

conductor53 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So, you’re totally fine with young children being blown apart in their classrooms, huh? Or hundreds of people being shot from above at a concert? Or, you know, just going shopping at the local Walmart?

I want a better country than this. You should to.

Or I will just put you in the pro-dead 1st graders column

Ah, come on, guy! Just because someone enjoys shooting guns DOES NOT mean that he or she wants to see people killed. I've been shooting guns since I was 8 years old (68 years ago). I've never shot anyone, nor have I ever wanted to. Nor have I ever pointed a gun at anyone. I don't shoot animals, either (none of them has ever shot at me).
I like to shoot guns. That does not make me a murderer.

Do you support the common-sense legislation supported by the Brady campaign?
https://www.bradyunited.org/legislation

DP. Expanded background checks are fine but there must be mandatory upper limit. You can't make it a voluntary request to request that the FBI do their job. The FBI could simply "lose" a request and take forever. If three days aren't enough, make it enogh. Spend the money instead of increasing the backlog.

Extreme risk is a dead end. It makes the act of purchasing a gun is a reason to consider the person an extreme risk and therefore allow seizure. There is no limit on the "temporary" order. It's temporary until you petition or the court decides to cancel it. That's not what temporary means.

Ok. Mandatory upper limit.

How would you rework extreme risk?

Temporary orders can't be "temporary until challenged". Even the mentally ill have more right with respect to a temporary mental detention order in Virginia. You can't hold them indefinitely while trying to decide if they are a danger. You have essentially 72 hours. The act of purchasing a gun can't be the sole consideration of determining you are an extreme risk. This is a "second" background check. Didn't you already run a lengthy background check for up to two weeks?

Maybe there was a change after the background check. Maybe someone stopped taking their meds. Maybe someone thought it was OK to beat their wife and kids. Things change and we need a mechanism to remove guns from people who are a danger to others.

Temporary for one month and then reassess? Give some workable solutions here.

Thinks will ALWAYS change after the background check. You are hoping for an infinitly long background check. Someone on psychiatric medications shouldn't pass a background check in the first place. If things change, you can issue a temporary order but the order can be permanent until challenged. Otherwise, jurisdictions will simply issue temporary orders for anyone who purchases a gun. These orders have a lower bar since they don't go to trial, nothing needs to be proven. Easily abused.

Sorry. We don’t skip doing the right thing because it MIGHT be abused.

Yes, we actually do. There are several laws that have been struck down because they have been abused. The three-strikes laws and various narcotic laws that target a specific class of drugs that have the side effect of targeting certain minorities unfairly. If your argument is that "drugs are bad and drug use must be stopped" those laws are still "good" even though they unfairly abuse a segment of the population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Self defense does not need to involve a gun

A knife is a good option but it takes soooo much more training to be effective, so it isn't feasible for the average person.

Knives will be bannned next. See London for an example.

Knives capable of killing someone SHOULD be banned! Duh??? Why is that even a thing?

You don't need a samurai sword to spread cream cheese. You don't need a Rambo knife to cut fruit. Frankly, there's really no need for large butcher and boning knives, either, so we can dispense with those too. Everything you need a knife for can be accomplished with a knife less than 4" long, which are generally far less lethal than larger knives. I would absolutely support a ban on military-style assault knives, and on large chef knives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Self defense does not need to involve a gun

A knife is a good option but it takes soooo much more training to be effective, so it isn't feasible for the average person.

Knives will be bannned next. See London for an example.

This actually scares me, especially after NYC has enacted ridiculous knife laws. . KNIVES ARE FREAKING TOOLS.

I don't know of any valid use for a knife except for killing. Just like guns.