76/95 VA counties declare 2A sanctuaries

[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.

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.

First of all, this most commonly used knife in homicides are kitchen knives. Second, it only take a few inches to make a lethal wound. Should we ban pairing knives? Third, a smaller blade is more dangerous than a large one for the simple reason of concealment.

Now that I re read your post, I can't believe I fell for it. You must be a troll right? "Military style assault knives"? Please tell me you weren't being serious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don't? I suggest you get a life and make your way out of the house once in awhile. Or up your troll game....

[Anonymous]

If you want to see what knives can do, we try to hold an Organic Medium (Pig Lab) course once every six months or so. The last one we had in Arlington in September was wildly successful and informative. This course is not for the faint of heart.


Just google Eds Manifesto Organic Medium.

[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.

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.

.

Please don’t try to equate guns with legal drugs. FFS.

Ok. Let’s try it and if it’s abused then strike it down.

But we don’t do NOTHING. Again, if you have constructive suggestions, great. If you’re trying to block every single thing then sit down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

.

Please don’t try to equate guns with legal drugs. FFS.

Ok. Let’s try it and if it’s abused then strike it down.

But we don’t do NOTHING. Again, if you have constructive suggestions, great. If you’re trying to block every single thing then sit down

[Anonymous]

Please don’t try to equate guns with legal drugs. FFS.

Ok. Let’s try it and if it’s abused then strike it down.

But we don’t do NOTHING. Again, if you have constructive suggestions, great. If you’re trying to block every single thing then sit down


I think we have had some good suggestions. But SB16 is not one of them.

[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.

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.

You are STUPID. Rinse and repeat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: If you are curious about a specific one(s) or all of them, I will be more than happy to explain further what each means.

Which ones do you have? All of them?

And do you have any high-capacity magazines?

compensation for lacking in other areas.

[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.

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.

Potato peelers, too. They’re dangerous and you don’t need one to peel a potato. I want them banned.

[Anonymous]

That map is interesting. The wealthier areas are following the law, and the poorer areas are deciding not to follow the law. And yes, they are breaking the law because if it was unconstitutional, the law would not have passed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Potato peelers, too. They’re dangerous and you don’t need one to peel a potato. I want them banned.

You're forgetting garden tools. No one needs shears or shovels, they could be used as deadly weapons!

AND WHAT ABOUT AXES AND HATCHETS?!!! These should only be in the possession of skilled lumberjacks and landscapers. Even then, a police officer should be present to monitor their activity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That map is interesting. The wealthier areas are following the law, and the poorer areas are deciding not to follow the law. And yes, they are breaking the law because if it was unconstitutional, the law would not have passed.

What "law" are you talking about? I'm pretty sure nothing has passed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: If you are curious about a specific one(s) or all of them, I will be more than happy to explain further what each means.

Which ones do you have? All of them?

And do you have any high-capacity magazines?

compensation for lacking in other areas.

What areas are those?

[Anonymous]

Why is this in Local/DC Politics? I’m getting spam from national organizations urging me to go to a rural county supervisors meeting. There is national conservative money behind this fake movement and I bet Russia is behind the fake out rage of the grubby neck beard old white guys. This reminds me of the “ammo shortage” when Obama was reflected. They were lined up outside of Green Tops.

There are no current laws threatening your right to own guns boys.

[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.

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.

Not sure what arrangements you have at the institute. But most people who live in apartments or houses have kitchens, and if you have a kitchen, you probably have a knife that is capable of easily killing someone.