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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:More white supremacists. They were EVERYWHERE!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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........

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.

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?

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.