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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ I mean, that's basically what those guys in Richmond looked like yesterday. Same idea. Fantasy cosplay geekery.

Nice try. But, it's still a fail.

Really, it's not. But your butthurt is hilarious.

I mean, a bunch of grown men, most of whom couldn't actually make it in the military parading around in paramilitary gear isn't any different than nerds doing cosplay at Comiccon.

Um. A good number of those present yesterday were..... wait for it...... IN THE MILITARY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh huh. Sure.

So we're all still waiting on that post where a gun rights supporter says they want "deranged and crazy people to be armed"


Stilllllllllll waiting.

Yawn.

If you are ok with anyone getting a gun then you are ok with crazy people getting guns.

Do YOU support universal background checks? Do YOU support red flag laws?

Nah. Your ridiculous oversimplification here fools no one. You were asked to prove your assertion that gun rights proponents specifically said they wanted "crazy" and "deranged" persons to be armed. You said they posted those exact words on a post somewhere in this 32 page thread . You were asked to find that post, and quote it. That's all. That's the ONLY thing you had to do.

But that post doesn't exist. It never did.

So you had to set about moving those goalposts.... again. Like always.

"Well, if you're not for ________, it basically MEANS you're in favor of ______, even if you don't actually say as much"


No. Doesn't work like that. And I think you should apologize now and admit you were wrong, because that's the adult thing to do.



Now, as to your argument - you simply won't find gun rights proponents advocating for "crazy" or "deranged" or otherwise dangerously mentally ill people to be armed. Period. But being opposed to universal background checks doesn't equate to the same thing. Sorry, it just doesn't. There are some very good reasons for being opposed to UBC's, and none involve the idea of wanting crazy people armed. Until you stop conflating the two notions, you are imposing limits on yourself in your ability to see other sides of the argument. And that is intellectually unsound.

I'm sorry you're having trouble following the thread, pops, but I never said "they posted those exact words". FYI - DP means "different poster" - you are confusing posters.

Here's exactly what I wrote:
"DP. Not too far back someone said that they don’t want UBC...basically advocating that ANYONE (even crazy and deranged people) should have a gun."

And then I gave the timestamp for the person who said they don't want UBC.

So feel free to apologize to me once you figure that all out.


In the mean time....

Background checks and red flag laws DO help to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. If you don't like them for whatever reason then please suggest an alternative. How would you like to ensure that crazy/deranged people don't get guns? Or do you think that ANYONE should be able to get a gun?

UBC and red flag laws would eventually keep guns out of the hands of alll people. That is the problem.

Here - read up on why UBC isn't needed and would not work.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/against-universal-background-checks/

The poster above outlined the issues with the red flag laws. In addition, they are unconstitutional.

Do you think anyone at anytime should be able to get a gun?

No. We have laws to prevent felons and other from getting weapons.
Do you believe there are no background checks in place already?

Felon walks into a gun show. Should he be allowed to buy a gun without a background check?

No. But, if I wish to gift my firearm to my age-eligible son or daughter, I should not have to conduct a background check.

So you're OK requiring background checks at gun shows then?

Another scenario - your neighbor wants to gift a firearm to his felon son. No background check for him?

The neighbor would be knowingly breaking the law.
And, if there were UBC laws in place, if the neighbor wanted to illegally gift his son a firearm, do you think he would comply by having a background check completed?
You are not reasoning through this........

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ I mean, that's basically what those guys in Richmond looked like yesterday. Same idea. Fantasy cosplay geekery.

Nice try. But, it's still a fail.

Really, it's not. But your butthurt is hilarious.

I mean, a bunch of grown men, most of whom couldn't actually make it in the military parading around in paramilitary gear isn't any different than nerds doing cosplay at Comiccon.

Um. A good number of those present yesterday were..... wait for it...... IN THE MILITARY.

No they weren't. They were cosplaying as soldier boys in their "militias" -- which shouldn't be called as such.

A good number of those presents yesterday weren't even Virginians. Why would our legislators give a hoot what they say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you think anyone at anytime should be able to get a gun?

No. We have laws to prevent felons and other from getting weapons.
Do you believe there are no background checks in place already?

Felon walks into a gun show. Should he be allowed to buy a gun without a background check?

No. But, if I wish to gift my firearm to my age-eligible son or daughter, I should not have to conduct a background check.

So you're OK requiring background checks at gun shows then?

Another scenario - your neighbor wants to gift a firearm to his felon son. No background check for him?

The neighbor would be knowingly breaking the law.
And, if there were UBC laws in place, if the neighbor wanted to illegally gift his son a firearm, do you think he would comply by having a background check completed?
You are not reasoning through this........

So you are OK requiring background checks for gun shows?

How about online ads? Your neighbor places an ad online to sell his gun and unknowingly sells to a felon. You don't think he should do a background check on potential buyers?

As long as you can easily gift a gun to your daughter you are OK not requiring background checks for unlicensed sellers?

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/interstate-and-online-gun-sales/
- A recent large-scale survey found that 45% of gun owners who acquired a gun online in the past two years did so without any background check.1
- Nearly one in nine prospective gun buyers on Armslist.com (a major web platform for gun classifieds) would not have passed a background check.2
- In 2018 alone, there were 1.2 million ads on Armslist.com for firearm sales where no background check was required.3

How many of those were felons, people with mental health issues, or people with a history of domestic abuse?

I've reasoned through it, weighed the pros/cons, and came to a different conclusion than you. I'm OK if people are inconvenienced if it means we can keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ I mean, that's basically what those guys in Richmond looked like yesterday. Same idea. Fantasy cosplay geekery.

Nice try. But, it's still a fail.

Really, it's not. But your butthurt is hilarious.

I mean, a bunch of grown men, most of whom couldn't actually make it in the military parading around in paramilitary gear isn't any different than nerds doing cosplay at Comiccon.

Um. A good number of those present yesterday were..... wait for it...... IN THE MILITARY.

No they weren't. They were cosplaying as soldier boys in their "militias" -- which shouldn't be called as such.

A good number of those presents yesterday weren't even Virginians. Why would our legislators give a hoot what they say?

Shows how much you know about the crowd. I'll bet you didn't know one person who attended, but you think you are entitled to pontificate about what you think you know based on your bias and stereotypes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ I mean, that's basically what those guys in Richmond looked like yesterday. Same idea. Fantasy cosplay geekery.

Nice try. But, it's still a fail.

Really, it's not. But your butthurt is hilarious.

I mean, a bunch of grown men, most of whom couldn't actually make it in the military parading around in paramilitary gear isn't any different than nerds doing cosplay at Comiccon.

Um. A good number of those present yesterday were..... wait for it...... IN THE MILITARY.

No they weren't. They were cosplaying as soldier boys in their "militias" -- which shouldn't be called as such.

A good number of those presents yesterday weren't even Virginians. Why would our legislators give a hoot what they say?

Shows how much you know about the crowd. I'll bet you didn't know one person who attended, but you think you are entitled to pontificate about what you think you know based on your bias and stereotypes.

You would be correct. I do not associate with gun nuts. I prefer my friends to be sane and rational.

That said, I have been forced, professionally, to interact with these types and rest assured by biases and stereotypes are well-founded.

I'm also old enough to remember when Americans weren't such fearful ninnies who feel the need to walk around security objects. I just think we should substitute a binky for your Glock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh huh. Sure.

So we're all still waiting on that post where a gun rights supporter says they want "deranged and crazy people to be armed"


Stilllllllllll waiting.

Yawn.

If you are ok with anyone getting a gun then you are ok with crazy people getting guns.

Do YOU support universal background checks? Do YOU support red flag laws?

Nah. Your ridiculous oversimplification here fools no one. You were asked to prove your assertion that gun rights proponents specifically said they wanted "crazy" and "deranged" persons to be armed. You said they posted those exact words on a post somewhere in this 32 page thread . You were asked to find that post, and quote it. That's all. That's the ONLY thing you had to do.

But that post doesn't exist. It never did.

So you had to set about moving those goalposts.... again. Like always.

"Well, if you're not for ________, it basically MEANS you're in favor of ______, even if you don't actually say as much"


No. Doesn't work like that. And I think you should apologize now and admit you were wrong, because that's the adult thing to do.



Now, as to your argument - you simply won't find gun rights proponents advocating for "crazy" or "deranged" or otherwise dangerously mentally ill people to be armed. Period. But being opposed to universal background checks doesn't equate to the same thing. Sorry, it just doesn't. There are some very good reasons for being opposed to UBC's, and none involve the idea of wanting crazy people armed. Until you stop conflating the two notions, you are imposing limits on yourself in your ability to see other sides of the argument. And that is intellectually unsound.

I'm sorry you're having trouble following the thread, pops, but I never said "they posted those exact words". FYI - DP means "different poster" - you are confusing posters.

Here's exactly what I wrote:
"DP. Not too far back someone said that they don’t want UBC...basically advocating that ANYONE (even crazy and deranged people) should have a gun."

And then I gave the timestamp for the person who said they don't want UBC.

So feel free to apologize to me once you figure that all out.


In the mean time....

Background checks and red flag laws DO help to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. If you don't like them for whatever reason then please suggest an alternative. How would you like to ensure that crazy/deranged people don't get guns? Or do you think that ANYONE should be able to get a gun?

UBC and red flag laws would eventually keep guns out of the hands of alll people. That is the problem.

Here - read up on why UBC isn't needed and would not work.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/against-universal-background-checks/

The poster above outlined the issues with the red flag laws. In addition, they are unconstitutional.

Do you think anyone at anytime should be able to get a gun?

No. We have laws to prevent felons and other from getting weapons.
Do you believe there are no background checks in place already?

Felon walks into a gun show. Should he be allowed to buy a gun without a background check?

No. But, if I wish to gift my firearm to my age-eligible son or daughter, I should not have to conduct a background check.

So you're OK requiring background checks at gun shows then?

Another scenario - your neighbor wants to gift a firearm to his felon son. No background check for him?

NP here. What you do not seem to comprehend about these background checks is that they are a form of registration that forever LINKS a person's identity with the firearm.

That type of permanent gun database can (and has) been used for confiscation in many places - including California (and DC before that).

Besides, if something is a RIGHT, then why must I register for it FIRST?

Not to mention: transfers in VA already happen only after the seller asks the buyer if they are allowed to receive the gun. So it is already taken care of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ I mean, that's basically what those guys in Richmond looked like yesterday. Same idea. Fantasy cosplay geekery.

Nice try. But, it's still a fail.

Really, it's not. But your butthurt is hilarious.

I mean, a bunch of grown men, most of whom couldn't actually make it in the military parading around in paramilitary gear isn't any different than nerds doing cosplay at Comiccon.

Um. A good number of those present yesterday were..... wait for it...... IN THE MILITARY.

No they weren't. They were cosplaying as soldier boys in their "militias" -- which shouldn't be called as such.

A good number of those presents yesterday weren't even Virginians. Why would our legislators give a hoot what they say?

Shows how much you know about the crowd. I'll bet you didn't know one person who attended, but you think you are entitled to pontificate about what you think you know based on your bias and stereotypes.

You would be correct. I do not associate with gun nuts. I prefer my friends to be sane and rational.

That said, I have been forced, professionally, to interact with these types and rest assured by biases and stereotypes are well-founded.

I'm also old enough to remember when Americans weren't such fearful ninnies who feel the need to walk around security objects. I just think we should substitute a binky for your Glock.

You sound like such a delightful person to be around So open-minded and sophisticated. What do you do for a living? I think I already have an idea, but I'd like to hear it from you first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ I mean, that's basically what those guys in Richmond looked like yesterday. Same idea. Fantasy cosplay geekery.

Nice try. But, it's still a fail.

Really, it's not. But your butthurt is hilarious.

I mean, a bunch of grown men, most of whom couldn't actually make it in the military parading around in paramilitary gear isn't any different than nerds doing cosplay at Comiccon.

Um. A good number of those present yesterday were..... wait for it...... IN THE MILITARY.

No they weren't. They were cosplaying as soldier boys in their "militias" -- which shouldn't be called as such.

A good number of those presents yesterday weren't even Virginians. Why would our legislators give a hoot what they say?

Shows how much you know about the crowd. I'll bet you didn't know one person who attended, but you think you are entitled to pontificate about what you think you know based on your bias and stereotypes.

The PP is just upset that there was no violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ I mean, that's basically what those guys in Richmond looked like yesterday. Same idea. Fantasy cosplay geekery.

Nice try. But, it's still a fail.

+1

I can't help but notice this poster simply can't compete when it comes to making sound, reasoned, logic-based arguments to support their position, and is continually resorting to name calling and posting memes.

It's so sad. They can't see themself the way others here do, enduring their juvenile attempts at deflection.

Then again, if they were actually wise, they'd be pro-gun. So I guess it's par for the course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More white supremacists. They were EVERYWHERE!

From that photo, and all the other photos of culturally-diverse people at yesterdays peaceful event:

- it does not seem to have been a white supremacy event at all.

Furthermore, the police emphasized there wasn't a single arrest made at all during this event (and the participants even cleaned the streets of litter/trash on their way home).

Also saw photos of LGTBQ gun owners welcomed at that march (they apparently have their own group "Pink Pistols") and plenty of woman who oppose these proposed bans (along with over 90 of VA's 95 counties that voted sanctuary status / refuse to enforce any new gun ban passed by the dems).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh huh. Sure.

So we're all still waiting on that post where a gun rights supporter says they want "deranged and crazy people to be armed"


Stilllllllllll waiting.

Yawn.

If you are ok with anyone getting a gun then you are ok with crazy people getting guns.

Do YOU support universal background checks? Do YOU support red flag laws?

Nah. Your ridiculous oversimplification here fools no one. You were asked to prove your assertion that gun rights proponents specifically said they wanted "crazy" and "deranged" persons to be armed. You said they posted those exact words on a post somewhere in this 32 page thread . You were asked to find that post, and quote it. That's all. That's the ONLY thing you had to do.

But that post doesn't exist. It never did.

So you had to set about moving those goalposts.... again. Like always.

"Well, if you're not for ________, it basically MEANS you're in favor of ______, even if you don't actually say as much"


No. Doesn't work like that. And I think you should apologize now and admit you were wrong, because that's the adult thing to do.



Now, as to your argument - you simply won't find gun rights proponents advocating for "crazy" or "deranged" or otherwise dangerously mentally ill people to be armed. Period. But being opposed to universal background checks doesn't equate to the same thing. Sorry, it just doesn't. There are some very good reasons for being opposed to UBC's, and none involve the idea of wanting crazy people armed. Until you stop conflating the two notions, you are imposing limits on yourself in your ability to see other sides of the argument. And that is intellectually unsound.

I'm sorry you're having trouble following the thread, pops, but I never said "they posted those exact words". FYI - DP means "different poster" - you are confusing posters.

Here's exactly what I wrote:
"DP. Not too far back someone said that they don’t want UBC...basically advocating that ANYONE (even crazy and deranged people) should have a gun."

And then I gave the timestamp for the person who said they don't want UBC.

So feel free to apologize to me once you figure that all out.


In the mean time....

Background checks and red flag laws DO help to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. If you don't like them for whatever reason then please suggest an alternative. How would you like to ensure that crazy/deranged people don't get guns? Or do you think that ANYONE should be able to get a gun?

UBC and red flag laws would eventually keep guns out of the hands of alll people. That is the problem.

Here - read up on why UBC isn't needed and would not work.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/against-universal-background-checks/

The poster above outlined the issues with the red flag laws. In addition, they are unconstitutional.

Do you think anyone at anytime should be able to get a gun?

No. We have laws to prevent felons and other from getting weapons.
Do you believe there are no background checks in place already?

Felon walks into a gun show. Should he be allowed to buy a gun without a background check?

No. But, if I wish to gift my firearm to my age-eligible son or daughter, I should not have to conduct a background check.

So you're OK requiring background checks at gun shows then?

Another scenario - your neighbor wants to gift a firearm to his felon son. No background check for him?

NP here. What you do not seem to comprehend about these background checks is that they are a form of registration that forever LINKS a person's identity with the firearm.

That type of permanent gun database can (and has) been used for confiscation in many places - including California (and DC before that).

Besides, if something is a RIGHT, then why must I register for it FIRST?

Not to mention: transfers in VA already happen only after the seller asks the buyer if they are allowed to receive the gun. So it is already taken care of.

1. You want to rely on the word of the buyer?
2. It’s potentially a record of the purchase, not a registration.
3. If it did feed into a registry at some point that’d be a great way to track down straw purchasers.
4. Registering itself would not infringe on your civil liberties (voting).
5. Are you against all background checks?

[Anonymous]

People need to petition for red flag orders against gun control advocates, because it's their right to do so if they feel threatened. And I would certainly feel threatened by a total stranger who demanded I give up my guns for no reason other than they desire it. Get red flag laws orders against the membership of Mom's Demand Action. Get red flag orders against the membership of Everytown and the Brady Center. Get red flag laws against tv reporters. Get red flag laws against the politicians who sponsor and vote for these laws. Let them see their own devices used against them. Let their houses be torn apart in a fruitless search. Let their property be damaged and destroyed. Let them reap what they sew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More white supremacists. They were EVERYWHERE!

From that photo, and all the other photos of culturally-diverse people at yesterdays peaceful event:

- it does not seem to have been a white supremacy event at all.

Those brothers were there because yesterday was the ONLY day they would ever get to walk around armed like that without getting immediately shot by the police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People need to petition for red flag orders against gun control advocates, because it's their right to do so if they feel threatened. And I would certainly feel threatened by a total stranger who demanded I give up my guns for no reason other than they desire it. Get red flag laws orders against the membership of Mom's Demand Action. Get red flag orders against the membership of Everytown and the Brady Center. Get red flag laws against tv reporters. Get red flag laws against the politicians who sponsor and vote for these laws. Let them see their own devices used against them. Let their houses be torn apart in a fruitless search. Let their property be damaged and destroyed. Let them reap what they sew.

Oh look. Another stable genius.

1. The risk order would have to be submitted by 2 cops or a DA. Not just any anonymous poster on DCUM.

2. A judge would have to approve the risk order and search warrant to remove firearms.

If you'd like to inform yourself:

Summary:
https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+SB240
Details:
https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+ful+SB240S3+hil