76/95 VA counties declare 2A sanctuaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

You are correct, although there are proposed laws that would.

[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

Please become acquainted with English and logic before you post again.

I mentioned the drug laws because they where a knee jerk reaction to the "War on Drugs" which has been a dismal failure and simply a means to an end. Incarceration of as many non-white people as possible. Do we really want to repeat history because "it might help?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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....

Can do. I don't know of any valid use for hammer. It's simply a killing weapon.

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40808/are-more-people-killed-with-hammers-than-with-guns-in-the-us

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Please become acquainted with English and logic before you post again.

I mentioned the drug laws because they where a knee jerk reaction to the "War on Drugs" which has been a dismal failure and simply a means to an end. Incarceration of as many non-white people as possible. Do we really want to repeat history because "it might help?"

Yes. Unless you have a better idea, sit down.

[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.

Trash is trash.

[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.

The fact that a law passes does not mean it is constitutional. I point you to Jim Crow, mixed-race marriage bans, and the gun laws that were struck down in Heller and McDonald.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Trash is trash.

No humans a trash. You are a sick bigot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

LMAO. SO true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is so dumb and embarrassing. these babies are whining because they may not be able to bring their guns to farmer's markets and scare kids.

LOL. Keep grasping at straws, and thanks for setting our Country back by helping Trump get elected.

Someone DID bring a gun to the Old Town farmers market, next to City Hall - and City of Alexandria couldn't do anything about it, because of state law.

And I doubt very much that voters in Wisconsin will vote for DJT because the Virginia General Assembly gives City of Alexandria the right to ban guns on city property.

It scared adults more than children. The ones who should be rational.

Why TF would anyone bring a gun to a fcking farmers market? If you’re going to pull stupid stunts like that then you get irrational reactions.

This^^^. And I was there. It absolutely scared children, including mine. Not because they haven’t been around guns - I worked with law enforcement for years. But even my kids know there is a difference between trained professionals carrying a firearm and your everyday moron toting an assault style weapon at a farmer’s market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is so dumb and embarrassing. these babies are whining because they may not be able to bring their guns to farmer's markets and scare kids.

LOL. Keep grasping at straws, and thanks for setting our Country back by helping Trump get elected.

Someone DID bring a gun to the Old Town farmers market, next to City Hall - and City of Alexandria couldn't do anything about it, because of state law.

And I doubt very much that voters in Wisconsin will vote for DJT because the Virginia General Assembly gives City of Alexandria the right to ban guns on city property.

It scared adults more than children. The ones who should be rational.

Why TF would anyone bring a gun to a fcking farmers market? If you’re going to pull stupid stunts like that then you get irrational reactions.

This^^^. And I was there. It absolutely scared children, including mine. Not because they haven’t been around guns - I worked with law enforcement for years. But even my kids know there is a difference between trained professionals carrying a firearm and your everyday moron toting an assault style weapon at a farmer’s market.

You said handgun. Now you're saying assault weapon? Which was it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have to be paid trolls in this thread. To discredit the gun control people.

I’m very pro gun control but this is insane.

Well they aren't doing a good job. They did however show us their true colors, with the quick reaction to threats of violence. Seriously murdered by SWAT teams, prison rape, these sickos have their fantasies.

Haha. Project much?

Uh No. Disgusted much.

Yes. I am very much disgusted by you.

Yes you've made that clear, that not only do you hate the fringe of crazy gun owners, you hate the average ones too, heck you hate anyone who won't fall 100% into line with your extreme views. And to top it off, disagreement wasn't enough for you, neither was name calling. You had to say some truly sick shit, but I guess thats what gets you off these days.

+1 They hate all responsible gun owners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Trash is trash.

No humans a trash. You are a sick bigot.

Gun culture = trash

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Trash is trash.

No humans a trash. You are a sick bigot.

Gun culture = trash

The "gun culture" people aren't the ones you should be worried about. For most, it's just a hobby, or it is part of their job. You know, like cops and people in the military.

You should be more worried about gang an drug dealing culture, which accounts for most homicides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Trash is trash.

No humans a trash. You are a sick bigot.

Gun culture = trash

The "gun culture" people aren't the ones you should be worried about. For most, it's just a hobby, or it is part of their job. You know, like cops and people in the military.

You should be more worried about gang an drug dealing culture, which accounts for most homicides.

Ok. “Baltimore”. Got the code.

Where did they get their guns? They were all sold legally at some point. Someone in the “gun culture” is putting them on the streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Trash is trash.

No humans a trash. You are a sick bigot.

Gun culture = trash

For example: