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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Martin Luther King Jr was killed with a gun.

Why hold a pro-gun rally *on* MLK Day?

Instead of reflecting on his great work and words we will be worried about more gun violence. It’s disrespectful at a minimum. It’s blatant hate & racism at worst.

Disgusting.

Lol is this your first time hearing about lobby day? I know you hate rights, so I guess we can add the right to assembly to your list of evil.

Holding a pro-gun rally on MLK Day is disgusting. That’s probably a bigger draw to the white supremacists than the gun rights. Have fun with your very fine friends.

Looking at past years, it seems they hold it each year in the third Monday of January. Last year it was on Jan 21, the year before that Jan 15.

I think you are assuming bigotry.

Right. MLK Day is the third Monday of January.

Hopefully the new General Assembly fixes this.

Lobby day, which isn't just for gun issues, is always on MLK day.

Right. Since it's been dominated by gun rights for many years so the GA should fix that.

Ah, so gun owners just shouldn't even be afforded the opportunity to speak to Delegates or Senators, huh? Gotcha.

What's next? Make them all wear little yellow stars with "G" stenciled on it on their sleeves?

A good number of those people were not Virginians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the thread but I have a shallow question based on the pictures. Are gun owners as a group really that much more out of shape than the average? I was pretty surprised at the pictures. They seemed to be overwhelmingly out of shape.

Hence my comment earlier about the hilarity of a bunch of sad, fat old men prancing around in their costumes carrying guns and acting like they would actually do something other than crap their pants if the government actually showed up to disarm them. They are all legends in their own minds.

[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: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?

Would still love to know if you are against ALL background checks...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Would still love to know if you support background checks for gun shows and online sales (any unlicensed seller).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I own several guns, and carry a gun every day, but I really feel sorry for most of the protesters. They are people who have simply been left behind in our current society. Do you honestly think that if you have money and can get laid that you would be hanging out with a bunch of guys dressing up like GI Joe? They are just trying to be somebody, and this is all they've got.

Kind of like all the weirdos who show up at “Women’s marches” dressed as vaginas?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I own several guns, and carry a gun every day, but I really feel sorry for most of the protesters. They are people who have simply been left behind in our current society. Do you honestly think that if you have money and can get laid that you would be hanging out with a bunch of guys dressing up like GI Joe? They are just trying to be somebody, and this is all they've got.

Kind of like all the weirdos who show up at “Women’s marches” dressed as vaginas?

So well-played

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Would still love to know if you support background checks for gun shows and online sales (any unlicensed seller).

Still waiting for the “sound, reasoned, logic-based arguments to support your position”....

[Anonymous]

You've already been provided with them several times throughout this thread. Go back and read them again. Or not. I don't care. Your questions have already been answered.

Because all you're doing now is adult-equivalent of going "what? what?" everytime someone says something. You're making a childish game of forcing people to repeat themselves.


That's over now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You've already been provided with them several times throughout this thread. Go back and read them again. Or not. I don't care. Your questions have already been answered.

Because all you're doing now is adult-equivalent of going "what? what?" everytime someone says something. You're making a childish game of forcing people to repeat themselves.


That's over now.

These questions were not answered. And as I feared PPs are unwilling or unable to respond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You've already been provided with them several times throughout this thread. Go back and read them again. Or not. I don't care. Your questions have already been answered.

Because all you're doing now is adult-equivalent of going "what? what?" everytime someone says something. You're making a childish game of forcing people to repeat themselves.


That's over now.

These questions were not answered. And as I feared PPs are unwilling or unable to respond.

What questions?

[Anonymous]

Background checks are fine but needs to be an extremely high threshold to infringe upon the constitutional right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Background checks are fine but needs to be an extremely high threshold to infringe upon the constitutional right.

How do you define "extremely high threshold"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You've already been provided with them several times throughout this thread. Go back and read them again. Or not. I don't care. Your questions have already been answered.

Because all you're doing now is adult-equivalent of going "what? what?" everytime someone says something. You're making a childish game of forcing people to repeat themselves.


That's over now.

These questions were not answered. And as I feared PPs are unwilling or unable to respond.

What questions?

I was trying to finish a discussion with two PPs who seem to have disappeared.

My last posts to them:
01/22/2020 09:19
01/22/2020 09:18

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Background checks are fine but needs to be an extremely high threshold to infringe upon the constitutional right.

How do you define "extremely high threshold"?

Convicted of a violent felony.
Currently diagnosed with a mental illness scientifically associated with a proclivity to perform violent acts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Background checks are fine but needs to be an extremely high threshold to infringe upon the constitutional right.

How do you define "extremely high threshold"?

Convicted of a violent felony.
Currently diagnosed with a mental illness scientifically associated with a proclivity to perform violent acts.

How about the Terror Watch List?

And should background checks be required at gun shows? Online classified?