76/95 VA counties declare 2A sanctuaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can hunt deer without a gun. Get a bow. Get a crossbow. You can even use an atalatyl. You don't need a gun.

No one is talking about banning hunting. No one.

But you want all firearms banned and confiscated, got it. Just own this position, it will make you easier to weed out of our party in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: In some communities it is a way of life they won't easily give up as seen by this whole sanctuary thing.

Since there is no proposal being floated in the GA that would ban hunting, how does the sanctuary thing show that?

The laws proposed are extending background checks to gun shows, allowing localities to ban guns from public property (like a farmers market held on the plaza in front of City Hall) , a purchase limit of one gun per month (to prevent smuggling of guns from Va to other states)

The gun folks are claiming its about taking your hunting rifle away. That's BS, there is no political move in Va to do that even if it were held to be constitutional. Just typical NRA straw man stuff to get people riled up.

Lets focus on reality in this state.

How many people commenting here are even from Virginia, I wonder?

I'm moderately anti-gun and I definitely want hunting guns/sniper guns banned.

You are extreme anti gun if this is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: In some communities it is a way of life they won't easily give up as seen by this whole sanctuary thing.

Since there is no proposal being floated in the GA that would ban hunting, how does the sanctuary thing show that?

The laws proposed are extending background checks to gun shows, allowing localities to ban guns from public property (like a farmers market held on the plaza in front of City Hall) , a purchase limit of one gun per month (to prevent smuggling of guns from Va to other states)

The gun folks are claiming its about taking your hunting rifle away. That's BS, there is no political move in Va to do that even if it were held to be constitutional. Just typical NRA straw man stuff to get people riled up.

Lets focus on reality in this state.

How many people commenting here are even from Virginia, I wonder?

Most of the pro gunners probably are, most of the Anti's are probably residents of DC or New York.

[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:There's absolutely no point in discussing new gun safety legislation without including a component to address reducing the numbers of guns that are already out there on the street.

There are simply too many guns as it is, so anything that limits new guns is just slowing down the problem, not actually solving anything. I'm a scientist, and I develop solutions to problems - actual solutions - not feel good measures that won't really accomplish anything. And nothing short of a complete halt on the sales of new guns, in addition to removing certain types of extreme-danger guns from the public, is going to have a meaningful reduction in crime.


This can accomplished easily in a two-part legislative package. The first element would instill an immediate temporary moratorium on the sales of new guns, for a defined period, say five years. For the second element we should analyze the available data to determine what sorts of guns should be banned in the legislation, for example: assault guns, handguns, guns that use clips, guns that can fire repeatedly, sniper guns, guns that are excessively powerful, etc.

Offer a limited-time buyback program that provides gift cards or tax rebates in exchange for banned guns, and after that, offer rewards to anyone who turns in someone is possession of a banned weapon. Heavy fines and jail time for offenders.

At the end of the five year moratorium, legally-permitted types of guns can go back on sale to the public. Used guns of the types permitted by law can also be resold then.

All of this can be without any infringement on the second amendment whatsoever. You can still keep certain guns, so your "right to keep and bear arms" isn't infringed.


This is so obvious I just cannot fathom why this hasn't been done sooner. It's very distressing.

Seriously, "Sniper guns"? Please define as I have never heard this term when discussion gun control.

I'm a scientist, not a gun expert, but I would define a sniper rifle as any rifle that is used, or could be used, by a sniper. Hence "sniper guns" (duh )

If you needed some kind of specific standard, then I'd argue anything with a magnifying capability that makes long distance shooting possible. Anything capable of shooting long distances, over 100 meters, for example. That's how I'd define a sniper gun.

There is no legitimate purpose for a person to own something like that. A person 50-100 meters away cannot possibly pose a threat to you, so there is no reason why you should be able to have a gun capable of killing a person at that range. This is a no brainer.

Nearly every firearm can be lethal at 50-100 meters.

It seems the problem you have is with scopes and other magnified optics, this is a new one.

Average distance in a homicide is under 5 feet. People looking to shoot at great distances are doing so for competition or hunting, not for murder.

If the average distance of a shooting is five feet (let's just for the moment assume your sourcing is legitimate) then why on earth do you NEED a gun that can hit and kill someone 150 feet away?

And why should anyone be practicing shooting long distances? That in and of itself strikes me as an alarming danger signal. Why would someone be practicing to shoot a distant targets? Who do they plan on shooting from afar? Sounds like an assassin wanna-be to me. JFK and MLK were killed at very long distances, nearly 70 meters in JFK's case. I would definitely think banning the type of guns capable of doing that makes sense.

70 meters is not far at all by firearms standards. You don't need to kill anyone at any distance, however we do live in a world with physics. Look at how many homicides occur every year at 50+ meters. I don't know where you would even find this info but my guess is there are under 3 and that is a conservative estimate. 100-300 Meters is a common distance to shoot rifles at for hunting and sport, and you have long range hunting and competitions that push 1500 meters.

1500'meters is nearly a mile. That's absurd. There is absolutely no need for something like that. A person (or animal, for that matter) has no chance at all if they can't even see or hear being shot at from such a distance, it's completely unsportsmanlike when it comes to game animals, and completely unfair when it comes to people trying to avoid being shot.

Again, I'm not a gun expert, but I will say you're not doing your hobby a favor by arguing in favor of stuff like this. I find it alarming that someone could shoot at me from 1500 meters away, and I wouldn't even know until I was hit by the bullet. That's totally unacceptable.

Because you would totally know before, if someone shot you at 20 yards? I think you sound a bit ridiculous, but if the only firearm experience you have is with Hollywood or video games I totally understand.

I could see someone 60 ft away from me, and try to evade them. At least I'd have a chance. There is no chance at all if the person shooting at me is 300 ft away. That's what needs to be outlawed.

How many shootings happen at that distance? I think you are living in a fantasy world. If you want to do something about guns that doesn't make you sound crazy, focus on the ones that do the killing.

The DC snipers were using a rifle with a telescope device to aim with in order to shoot people over 150 yards away in a couple cases. That's exactly why these telescope devices and the rifles that allow their use should be outlawed. We've already had numerous examples of such long distance killing.

Sorry lol no "telescope device". The optic that was used in an Bushnell holographic sight which is NOT MAGNIFIED. And re reading the case info, I see shootings occurring at 35-70 yards not 150. This was done by a man who was trained on iron sights out to 500 meters.

I'm still digging, but I'm not finding any civilian homicides in the last 15 years which would be considered sniper incidents.

+1 Keep dropping knowledge on these gals. We schooled them in this thread on SB16 and assault weapons, "Cop Killer" bullets, and now hunting rifles and optics! Looks like we all agree on background checks though!


Any other Hollywood myths and other whacky stuff for us to debunk?

Just let them keep talking, they usually reveal something incredibly hilarious they think to be true. This is not global warming, health care or abortion, most of my fellow democrats are out of their depth when discussing firearms.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no point in discussing new gun safety legislation without including a component to address reducing the numbers of guns that are already out there on the street.

There are simply too many guns as it is, so anything that limits new guns is just slowing down the problem, not actually solving anything. I'm a scientist, and I develop solutions to problems - actual solutions - not feel good measures that won't really accomplish anything. And nothing short of a complete halt on the sales of new guns, in addition to removing certain types of extreme-danger guns from the public, is going to have a meaningful reduction in crime.


This can accomplished easily in a two-part legislative package. The first element would instill an immediate temporary moratorium on the sales of new guns, for a defined period, say five years. For the second element we should analyze the available data to determine what sorts of guns should be banned in the legislation, for example: assault guns, handguns, guns that use clips, guns that can fire repeatedly, sniper guns, guns that are excessively powerful, etc.

Offer a limited-time buyback program that provides gift cards or tax rebates in exchange for banned guns, and after that, offer rewards to anyone who turns in someone is possession of a banned weapon. Heavy fines and jail time for offenders.

At the end of the five year moratorium, legally-permitted types of guns can go back on sale to the public. Used guns of the types permitted by law can also be resold then.

All of this can be without any infringement on the second amendment whatsoever. You can still keep certain guns, so your "right to keep and bear arms" isn't infringed.


This is so obvious I just cannot fathom why this hasn't been done sooner. It's very distressing.

Seriously, "Sniper guns"? Please define as I have never heard this term when discussion gun control.

I'm a scientist, not a gun expert, but I would define a sniper rifle as any rifle that is used, or could be used, by a sniper. Hence "sniper guns" (duh )

If you needed some kind of specific standard, then I'd argue anything with a magnifying capability that makes long distance shooting possible. Anything capable of shooting long distances, over 100 meters, for example. That's how I'd define a sniper gun.

There is no legitimate purpose for a person to own something like that. A person 50-100 meters away cannot possibly pose a threat to you, so there is no reason why you should be able to have a gun capable of killing a person at that range. This is a no brainer.

Nearly every firearm can be lethal at 50-100 meters.

It seems the problem you have is with scopes and other magnified optics, this is a new one.

Average distance in a homicide is under 5 feet. People looking to shoot at great distances are doing so for competition or hunting, not for murder.

If the average distance of a shooting is five feet (let's just for the moment assume your sourcing is legitimate) then why on earth do you NEED a gun that can hit and kill someone 150 feet away?

And why should anyone be practicing shooting long distances? That in and of itself strikes me as an alarming danger signal. Why would someone be practicing to shoot a distant targets? Who do they plan on shooting from afar? Sounds like an assassin wanna-be to me. JFK and MLK were killed at very long distances, nearly 70 meters in JFK's case. I would definitely think banning the type of guns capable of doing that makes sense.

70 meters is not far at all by firearms standards. You don't need to kill anyone at any distance, however we do live in a world with physics. Look at how many homicides occur every year at 50+ meters. I don't know where you would even find this info but my guess is there are under 3 and that is a conservative estimate. 100-300 Meters is a common distance to shoot rifles at for hunting and sport, and you have long range hunting and competitions that push 1500 meters.

1500'meters is nearly a mile. That's absurd. There is absolutely no need for something like that. A person (or animal, for that matter) has no chance at all if they can't even see or hear being shot at from such a distance, it's completely unsportsmanlike when it comes to game animals, and completely unfair when it comes to people trying to avoid being shot.

Again, I'm not a gun expert, but I will say you're not doing your hobby a favor by arguing in favor of stuff like this. I find it alarming that someone could shoot at me from 1500 meters away, and I wouldn't even know until I was hit by the bullet. That's totally unacceptable.

Because you would totally know before, if someone shot you at 20 yards? I think you sound a bit ridiculous, but if the only firearm experience you have is with Hollywood or video games I totally understand.

I could see someone 60 ft away from me, and try to evade them. At least I'd have a chance. There is no chance at all if the person shooting at me is 300 ft away. That's what needs to be outlawed.

How many shootings happen at that distance? I think you are living in a fantasy world. If you want to do something about guns that doesn't make you sound crazy, focus on the ones that do the killing.

The DC snipers were using a rifle with a telescope device to aim with in order to shoot people over 150 yards away in a couple cases. That's exactly why these telescope devices and the rifles that allow their use should be outlawed. We've already had numerous examples of such long distance killing.

Sorry lol no "telescope device". The optic that was used in an Bushnell holographic sight which is NOT MAGNIFIED. And re reading the case info, I see shootings occurring at 35-70 yards not 150. This was done by a man who was trained on iron sights out to 500 meters.

I'm still digging, but I'm not finding any civilian homicides in the last 15 years which would be considered sniper incidents.

+1 Keep dropping knowledge on these gals. We schooled them in this thread on SB16 and assault weapons, "Cop Killer" bullets, and now hunting rifles and optics! Looks like we all agree on background checks though!


Any other Hollywood myths and other whacky stuff for us to debunk?

Just let them keep talking, they usually reveal something incredibly hilarious they think to be true. This is not global warming, health care or abortion, most of my fellow democrats are out of their depth when discussing firearms.

The myth of the silencer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: In some communities it is a way of life they won't easily give up as seen by this whole sanctuary thing.

Since there is no proposal being floated in the GA that would ban hunting, how does the sanctuary thing show that?

The laws proposed are extending background checks to gun shows, allowing localities to ban guns from public property (like a farmers market held on the plaza in front of City Hall) , a purchase limit of one gun per month (to prevent smuggling of guns from Va to other states)

The gun folks are claiming its about taking your hunting rifle away. That's BS, there is no political move in Va to do that even if it were held to be constitutional. Just typical NRA straw man stuff to get people riled up.

Lets focus on reality in this state.

How many people commenting here are even from Virginia, I wonder?

Most of the pro gunners probably are, most of the Anti's are probably residents of DC or New York.

I suspect most of the pro gunners are out of state too, as they don't seem at all focused on what is actually before the GA.

I support most of the suggested new laws (I live in NoVa). But I know banning hunting rifles is not CLOSE to being on the agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: In some communities it is a way of life they won't easily give up as seen by this whole sanctuary thing.

Since there is no proposal being floated in the GA that would ban hunting, how does the sanctuary thing show that?

The laws proposed are extending background checks to gun shows, allowing localities to ban guns from public property (like a farmers market held on the plaza in front of City Hall) , a purchase limit of one gun per month (to prevent smuggling of guns from Va to other states)

The gun folks are claiming its about taking your hunting rifle away. That's BS, there is no political move in Va to do that even if it were held to be constitutional. Just typical NRA straw man stuff to get people riled up.

Lets focus on reality in this state.

How many people commenting here are even from Virginia, I wonder?

Yeah were residents of VA, Im in Arlington if you want to hang out. I think we were responding to a crazy poster who wanted hunting rifles banned and not the proposed legislation.
I suspect most of the pro gunners are out of state too, as they don't seem at all focused on what is actually before the GA.

I support most of the suggested new laws (I live in NoVa). But I know banning hunting rifles is not CLOSE to being on the agenda.

[Anonymous]

Myth of the silencer:


There is a reason we call them suppressors and not silencers.

A suppressor only reduces the volume of supersonic ammo by about 30 decibles. This means a suppressed rifle shooting supersonic rifle will sound about as loud as a military jet taking off with afterburner, at give or take 130 decibles. Subsonic ammo is generally around 110 decibles, which is about the equivalent of a rock concert.

[Anonymous]

Nations Gun Show in at the Dulles Expo center has been underway for an hour. Epic turnout for a Friday over the holidays! Showmasters thanks you all for the continued support!


Remember to mention DCUM for $5 off Saturday and Sunday. God Bless.

-Annette

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: In some communities it is a way of life they won't easily give up as seen by this whole sanctuary thing.

Since there is no proposal being floated in the GA that would ban hunting, how does the sanctuary thing show that?

The laws proposed are extending background checks to gun shows, allowing localities to ban guns from public property (like a farmers market held on the plaza in front of City Hall) , a purchase limit of one gun per month (to prevent smuggling of guns from Va to other states)

The gun folks are claiming its about taking your hunting rifle away. That's BS, there is no political move in Va to do that even if it were held to be constitutional. Just typical NRA straw man stuff to get people riled up.

Lets focus on reality in this state.

How many people commenting here are even from Virginia, I wonder?

Most of the pro gunners probably are, most of the Anti's are probably residents of DC or New York.

I suspect most of the pro gunners are out of state too, as they don't seem at all focused on what is actually before the GA.

I support most of the suggested new laws (I live in NoVa). But I know banning hunting rifles is not CLOSE to being on the agenda.

Nah plenty of us gun owners are in NOVA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nations Gun Show in at the Dulles Expo center has been underway for an hour. Epic turnout for a Friday over the holidays! Showmasters thanks you all for the continued support!


Remember to mention DCUM for $5 off Saturday and Sunday. God Bless.

-Annette

Good to see the State Police out in force today, helping to prevent the thugs from MD and NJ conduct there straw purchases is critical. There were more than a few dumb hoes in tears after they were arrested which is always priceless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nations Gun Show in at the Dulles Expo center has been underway for an hour. Epic turnout for a Friday over the holidays! Showmasters thanks you all for the continued support!


Remember to mention DCUM for $5 off Saturday and Sunday. God Bless.

-Annette

Enjoy your little flea market of death, B****. Because we're going to ban it. (Again!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: In some communities it is a way of life they won't easily give up as seen by this whole sanctuary thing.

Since there is no proposal being floated in the GA that would ban hunting, how does the sanctuary thing show that?

The laws proposed are extending background checks to gun shows, allowing localities to ban guns from public property (like a farmers market held on the plaza in front of City Hall) , a purchase limit of one gun per month (to prevent smuggling of guns from Va to other states)

The gun folks are claiming its about taking your hunting rifle away. That's BS, there is no political move in Va to do that even if it were held to be constitutional. Just typical NRA straw man stuff to get people riled up.

Lets focus on reality in this state.

How many people commenting here are even from Virginia, I wonder?

Most of the pro gunners probably are, most of the Anti's are probably residents of DC or New York.

I suspect most of the pro gunners are out of state too, as they don't seem at all focused on what is actually before the GA.

I support most of the suggested new laws (I live in NoVa). But I know banning hunting rifles is not CLOSE to being on the agenda.

Not yet, because a compelling case hasn't been made for that yet. But I'll be speaking to some friends of mine who have friends that were very influential in the last election in several turnover districts, about how similar/identical hunting guns are to sniper guns. I didn't understand this at first, but thanks to this thread, I've done some research of my own today, and I can definitely articulate why we need to work towards banning the sale and possession of guns with telescopic aiming accessories. Hopefully a new bill reflecting this with be filed within the month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: In some communities it is a way of life they won't easily give up as seen by this whole sanctuary thing.

Since there is no proposal being floated in the GA that would ban hunting, how does the sanctuary thing show that?

The laws proposed are extending background checks to gun shows, allowing localities to ban guns from public property (like a farmers market held on the plaza in front of City Hall) , a purchase limit of one gun per month (to prevent smuggling of guns from Va to other states)

The gun folks are claiming its about taking your hunting rifle away. That's BS, there is no political move in Va to do that even if it were held to be constitutional. Just typical NRA straw man stuff to get people riled up.

Lets focus on reality in this state.

How many people commenting here are even from Virginia, I wonder?

Most of the pro gunners probably are, most of the Anti's are probably residents of DC or New York.

I suspect most of the pro gunners are out of state too, as they don't seem at all focused on what is actually before the GA.

I support most of the suggested new laws (I live in NoVa). But I know banning hunting rifles is not CLOSE to being on the agenda.

Not yet, because a compelling case hasn't been made for that yet. But I'll be speaking to some friends of mine who have friends that were very influential in the last election in several turnover districts, about how similar/identical hunting guns are to sniper guns. I didn't understand this at first, but thanks to this thread, I've done some research of my own today, and I can definitely articulate why we need to work towards banning the sale and possession of guns with telescopic aiming accessories. Hopefully a new bill reflecting this with be filed within the month.

LMAO. You can't even draft a proper assault weapons bill and you think hunting rifles and optics are under threat from your lunacy?

Although he is not a member of the State legislature I'll speak with my representative Mr. Beyer and ask him if he has ever heard of something so ridiculous. Although I think I already no the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nations Gun Show in at the Dulles Expo center has been underway for an hour. Epic turnout for a Friday over the holidays! Showmasters thanks you all for the continued support!


Remember to mention DCUM for $5 off Saturday and Sunday. God Bless.

-Annette

Enjoy your little flea market of death, B****. Because we're going to ban it. (Again!)

You sure you don't want $5 off? You're welcome to come as long as you aren't a criminal or mentally unstable.