╌>

Security measures heightened as thousands head to Richmond for large gun rights rally

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  4 years ago  •  129 comments

By:   By Barnini Chakraborty

Security measures heightened as thousands head to Richmond for large gun rights rally
In a symbolic sign of defiance, more than 100 municipalities in Virginia have designated themselves as a save haven or sanctuary for the Second Amendment. Lawmakers and authorities in those areas have said they will refuse to enforce new gun control laws the Virginia legislature passes.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


RICHMOND, Va. — Stacks of chain-link fencing, white-covered tents and rows of metal detectors were in place Sunday night around  Virginia's  Capitol in Richmond, ahead of Monday's widely publicized  gun rights rally.

Thousands of people from across the country are expected to attend the demonstration demanding  state Democrats  drop a push for  comprehensive gun control  in the commonwealth.


Richmond, once the capital of the Confederacy, has been on high alert for days f ollowing threats of violence , including claims of a militia storming the Capitol to protesters weaponizing drones.


The fear, though, wasn't enough to keep Maryanne Martin or her husband William away.

"All of our freedoms as Americans are under attack," Martin told Fox News. "We have to stand up for our rights."

The Martins, who live in Baltimore, Md., drove 160 miles to Richmond Sunday morning and spent much of the afternoon walking around the barricades in place around the Capitol.

"We wanted to check it out today," she said. "If you ask me, it's a bit of overkill."

There had been concerns that white supremacists and anti-fascist activists would face off in Richmond but one of those activists, Molly Conger, tweeted Sunday that "there is no counter-demonstration planned for the january 20 (sic) convergence of armed militias on virginia's capitol. please, please encourage anyone you know who is thinking about counter protesting this event to stay away from downtown richmond on monday." (sic)


9wSujxLw_normal.jpg


molly conger @socialistdogmom








there is no counter demonstration planned for the january 20 convergence of armed militias on virginia's capitol.

please, please encourage anyone you know who is thinking about counter protesting this event to stay away from downtown richmond on monday. https:// twitter.com/TheQueerCrimer /status/1218290117955198976 


Also seen Sunday roaming the Capitol grounds was  Alex Jones , the conspiracy theorist behind InfoWars.

Members associated with the Light Foot Militia, some of whom were banned from Charlottesville, Va., following the deadly 2017  "Unite the Right" rally , are expected to attend Monday's protest.  Richard Spencer, a prominent white nationalist, has also indicated he might make an appearance.

Security concerns have also led to road closures as well as a ban on firearms in the Capitol and on its grounds.

"A ban on guns at a gun rally... I've heard it all now," Martin said.

An event memorializing victims of gun violence, and another honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., were also canceled due to safety concerns. The  Federal Aviation Administration  has banned drones within a 2-mile radius of the Capitol and nearby students at VCU and the Medical College of Virginia have been encouraged to stay indoors.

Virginia Citizens Defense League President Philip Van Cleave  told Fox News it's not the pro-gun groups that are stoking fear.

"It's the Democrats," he said. "It's almost like they want something to happen. It sounds crazy but they keep doing it and you have to start wondering if that's intentional."

Van Cleave said membership in his organization has tripled in the past six weeks and that 10,000 people have signed up for free email alerts. He attributes the spike in popularity to  Gov. Ralph Northam  and Democrats in the state legislature. Van Cleave believes they have "declared war on gun owners" and is counting on gun-rights advocates to show up Monday to have their collective voices heard.
"It's woken up gun owners across the state," he said.

Jaylynne Sensy, a mother of three from Chesterfield County, told Fox News she's planning on coming to the rally and bring her three children with her.

"They're trying to take our guns and that's not going to happen," she said. "We won't stand for it. This wouldn't happen if Republicans were still running things."

In November, Democrats flipped the state Senate and the House of Delegates, giving them control of both the governor's office and the legislature for the first time in a generation.

Following his reelection, Northam vowed to push through new gun-control measures, saying it was a top priority for Virginia Democrats. In doing so, he angered gun rights' advocates who believe he is trying to take away their rights.

That suspicion was fueled further on Friday when President Trump warned in a tweet that Virginia Democrats were threatening Americans' right to bear arms.


kUuht00m_normal.jpg


Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump








Your 2nd Amendment is under very serious attack in the Great Commonwealth of Virginia. That’s what happens when you vote for Democrats, they will take your guns away. Republicans will win Virginia in 2020. Thank you Dems!

"Your 2nd Amendment is under very serious attack in the Great Commonwealth of Virginia. That's what happens when you vote for Democrats, they will take your guns away. Republicans will win Virginia in 2020. Thank you Dems!" he tweeted.

Last week, three gun control bills advanced in the General Assembly, setting the stage for a contentious showdown between gun rights advocates and the Democratic lawmakers, who campaigned on bringing changes to the state following last year's mass shooting at a Virginia Beach municipal complex.

The bills that sailed through the Senate Judiciary Committee would require background checks on all firearms purchases, allow law enforcement to temporarily remove guns from people deemed to be a risk to themselves or others, limit handgun purchases to one a month and let localities decide on whether to ban weapons from certain events. To become law, the bills would have to pass the full Senate and the House of Delegates before going to the governor for his signature.

In a symbolic sign of defiance, more than 100 municipalities in Virginia have designated themselves as a save haven or sanctuary for the Second Amendment. Lawmakers and authorities in those areas have said they will refuse to enforce new gun control laws the Virginia legislature passes.

Monday's rally comes about 2 1/2 years after a deadly incident in Charlottesville, Va. In that case, hundreds of white nationalists and their supporters gathered in Charlottesville – about 70 miles from Richmond – to demonstrate over plans to remove a Confederate statute. They were met by counterprotesters and violence quickly erupted. At one point, a vehicle drove into a crowd of counterprotesters killing one and injuring more than a dozen others.

Fearing a similar scenario, Northam declared a state of emergency ahead of Richmond's rally.

"We have received credible intelligence from our enforcement agencies that there are groups with malicious plans for the rally that is planned for Monday," Northam said during a press conference on Wednesday.

House Republican Leader Todd Gilbert  called the upcoming rally "a time for people to peacefully assemble and petition their government."
"It is not a place for hate or violence," he said in a statement. "Any group that comes to Richmond to spread white supremacist garbage, or any other form of hate, violence or civil unrest isn't welcome here."

On Thursday, authorities announced the arrest of three men linked to the Base, a white extremist, anti-government group that has been tracked by the Federal Bureau of Investigations. The men, who obtained weapons and discussed going to the Richmond rally, were charged with a number of federal crimes in Maryland. A day later, law enforcement announced the arrest of at least four other men tied to the group.

Northam later said the majority of those planning to attend Monday's rally had no interest in fanning the flames of hate but acknowledged there were still a few hellbent on it.



Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    4 years ago

Who created this so-called "crisis"?

Sanctuary cities for the Second Amendment?

A state of emergeny because of protests?

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
1.1  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    4 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    4 years ago
He said the order was necessary to protect public safety because of potential violence from out-of-state groups at a gun-rights rally scheduled for Monday. “Let me be clear. These are considered credible, serious threats by our law enforcement agencies,” Northam said at a Capitol news conference."

But wait. "Threats" and "may happen" isn't grounds for this action. I mean, intelligence said that the Iranian General was "going to" order carrying out attacks against US interests but the reaction was unwarranted because............well.........not a real reason in the world.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.3    4 years ago

It's amazing isn't it?  Thousands of people have already turned up, all are peaceful and unarmed. I wonder how much coverage it will get.

Of course, If antifa showed up there would be cause for concern.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
1.3.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.1    4 years ago

They won't be unarmed for long.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.3.2    4 years ago
They won't be unarmed for long.

What do you mean?

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
1.3.4  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.1    4 years ago
all are peaceful and unarmed.

they are peacefull.. but unarmed? not all.

 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
1.3.6  1stwarrior  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.1    4 years ago

Don't forget - Alex Jones is on his way with his TANK and LOUDSPEAKER.

So much for being peaceful, eh?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  1stwarrior @1.3.6    4 years ago

How did he become such a hot story in all of this?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.7    4 years ago

EOugCekWoAA2asw?format=jpg&name=4096x409


Ah those Gov. Northam yearbook pictures!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
1.3.9  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.3    4 years ago

Oops I pulled an Emily Latilla.  This is about a gun rally and not a gun show.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.3.10  Sparty On  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.3.9    4 years ago
Emily Latilla

Never-mind .....

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.3.11  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sparty On @1.3.10    4 years ago
Emily Latilla Never-mind ..... 

jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
1.3.12  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Sparty On @1.3.10    4 years ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
1.4  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    4 years ago
Sanctuary cities for the Second Amendment?

better than sliced bread  :)

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @1.4    4 years ago

As we have learned there is no penalty for a sanctuary city, so why not?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    4 years ago

The red flag law in Colorado has gone into effect, and was immediately abused by some nut.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.5.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @1.5    4 years ago

I never get past this:

"When Morris began to holster his weapon so that he could stun Jeremy Holmes, Jeremy Holmes charged at him."


Once that happens a police officer is acting in self defense.

It's a terrible law by the way....open to abuse.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.6  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    4 years ago
Sanctuary cities for the Second Amendment?

It’s nice to see people standing up for actual rights for actual citizens instead of inventing rights for people who shouldn’t even be here in the first place.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2  Sparty On    4 years ago

Maybe they can activate antifa for security.

They can protect everyone with their "clock 19's."

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @2    4 years ago
Maybe they can activate antifa for security.

Would the hooded cowards of antifa actually face a group of thousands, some of whom might be armed?  I'll bet against that one!

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    4 years ago

Disengage sarcasm filter Vic  .....  jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3  seeder  Vic Eldred    4 years ago

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4  charger 383    4 years ago

I hope this is large, loud and safe.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  charger 383 @4    4 years ago

And if it is it will be as under reported as the "March for Life" will be.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5  devangelical    4 years ago

golly, self appointed defenders of the Constitution (when it suits them) sure picked an interesting day for their gun rally.

"All of our freedoms as Americans are under attack"

hyperbole, aka bullshit

(Democrats have) "declared war on gun owners"

sweeping generalization bullshit

"They're trying to take our guns and that's not going to happen"

I own guns, nobody is trying to take mine.

"That's what happens when you vote for Democrats, they will take your guns away."

POS/POTUS sure knows which pucker string to pull to get his base agitated. works every time.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.1  Sparty On  replied to  devangelical @5    4 years ago
golly, self appointed defenders of the Constitution (when it suits them) sure picked an interesting day for their gun rally.

True, they aren't pussies who usually only protest during warm weather seasons.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Sparty On @5.1    4 years ago
True, they aren't pussies who usually only protest during warm weather seasons.

false. fail. trick comment. it's lobby day for residents of va. cancelled along with MLK celebration. all street polling estimates exceeded 60% non-resident attendees at the rally. many bused in. that sounds familiar.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Participates
5.1.2  KDMichigan  replied to  devangelical @5.1.1    4 years ago
many bused in. that sounds familiar.

Yeah it sounds like Democrats voting. 

Whats wrong with taking a bus full to protest? Is it only okay if they are wearing pussy hats and scream at the sky? Or maybe they can get a ride from mommy like Antifa does after she stops at the store to buy them a black mask?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.1.3  charger 383  replied to  devangelical @5.1.1    4 years ago
many bused in

VCDL sponsored bus rides to Richmond from many Virginia communities  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.4  devangelical  replied to  KDMichigan @5.1.2    4 years ago

isn't insulated camo in the winter contradictory? wouldn't bed sheets with hoods be more appropriate?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  devangelical @5    4 years ago

A lot also depends on which part of the country you live in.

 
 
 
squiggy
Junior Silent
5.3  squiggy  replied to  devangelical @5    4 years ago

Where did you hear all that - at the Pro Choice rally?

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
6      4 years ago

I'm glad the pro-choice to by a gun crowd is going to be out making their voices heard. Everyone deserves a choice to be able to buy a gun. Especially women. It's one of the most important choices we need to protect.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
6.1  lady in black  replied to  @6    4 years ago

I am pro choice and I own many guns, oh the horror that a democratic woman owns guns...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  lady in black @6.1    4 years ago

Which he said he was glad of.

You read what he wrote, right?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
6.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  lady in black @6.1    4 years ago

No, the horror is that a Democrat actually owns guns. Not the norm.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
6.1.3    replied to  lady in black @6.1    4 years ago

I'm glad you own guns. I wouldn't want you walking around unprotected in those dangerous inner city ghettos in most democrat strongholds. It's a shame there are so many bigots on the left who want to restrict your choice of self defense.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
6.1.4  lady in black  replied to  @6.1.3    4 years ago

Oh please, there's gun violence everywhere these days.  Stop stereotyping

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
6.1.5    replied to  lady in black @6.1.4    4 years ago

Sure but cities that vote democrat tend to be on the top of the most violent cities lists. Detroit, St Louis, Baltimore, Memphis, Kansas City(blue city in a red state don't bother with the alternative facts), Cleveland, Stockton, Compton, Chicago, the list goes on and on.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
6.1.6  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  @6.1.5    4 years ago

And yet you are not including these cities: New York, Los Angles, Washington DC, Boston, San Jose, San Diago... see how that goes?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
7  Nerm_L    4 years ago

Methinks Gov. Ralph Northam is using the Democrats' impeachment playbook.  Northam is trying to be the Adam Schiff of governors.

Refresh my memory.  How many people were shot to death in Charlottesville?  How would gun control legislation have prevented Charlottesville?

Northam is only using his elected position to protect the Democrats' political ideology.  Democrats consider passing gun control legislation as some sort of major political accomplishment.  But that political accomplishment is actually about using the power of government to impose political priorities on the public whether the public likes it or not.  The rally goers in Richmond are more likely to be shot by government police than by white supremacists. 

The 1st amendment allows looney tunes from the left and the right to assemble and protest.  Gov. Northam has chosen to be on the side of the left's looney tunes.  Just keep in mind that this is a cartoon crisis created by cartoon political characters.  Daffy Duck and Yosemite Sam are the models for this bit of political theater.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
7.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Nerm_L @7    4 years ago

384

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.1    4 years ago

That is just fear mongering. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
7.1.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.2    4 years ago

I'm sorry but most democrats don't say they will confiscate guns. They want reasonable gun laws, like background checks. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
7.1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.3    4 years ago
They want reasonable gun laws, like background checks. 

Sadly, many on the right refuse to accept that fact because it doesn't fit the narrative that's been pounded into their heads by their Republican masters. Besides, they even imagine that universal background checks will lead to gun confiscations which is total nonsense, but hey, if they already believe one lie, what's one more?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
7.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.1    4 years ago
That is just fear mongering. 

No Perrie, that's pretty much the reality of the issue. First comes registration, with confiscation not far behind.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
7.1.7  Greg Jones  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.3    4 years ago
They want reasonable gun laws, like background checks. 

They already have those, in abundance. However, only honest and law abiding gun owners are affected

by "common sense" gun laws and expanded background checks. But a determined shooter, and criminals in general,

have no use for gun laws and ignore them.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
7.1.8  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @7.1.5    4 years ago

No Perrie, that's pretty much the reality of the issue. First comes registration, with confiscation not far behind.

Prove it.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
7.1.9  Jasper2529  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.1    4 years ago
That is just fear mongering. 

Really? "Buy back" programs and openly confiscating our guns are basically the same thing. Biden, Bloomberg, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Beto O'Rourke, Swalwell, Castro, Yang, and Buttigieg all have had varying degrees of mandatory or voluntary confiscation proposals. Thank God most of those candidates dropped out as utter failures.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
7.1.10  charger 383  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.3    4 years ago

VA Senate bill16 makes possessing an AR-15 a felony.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
7.1.14  Split Personality  replied to  Greg Jones @7.1.5    4 years ago

And if it comes from a federally licensed dealer it is already registered

as are those with concealed carry permits and regular handgun licenses.

TX passed GC411.2031 in 2015 and no one has come to confiscate anything yet

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
7.1.15  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.12    4 years ago
Disprove it.

I didn't make the claim. Sorry. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
7.1.16  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.2    4 years ago
Who other than Democrats have acknowledged that they will confiscate peoples guns?

Please tell us which democrat, in a position to affect legislation, said that they want to confiscate all guns? 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.1.17  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @7.1.10    4 years ago

Bans don't don't do anything but take weapons away from law abiding citizens IMO but then again most knowledgeable anti gunners already know that.   We all  found this to be true from the results of the assault weapons ban.   It accomplished little no matter how hard the left tries to spin the stats.   If they really wanted to affect change they would try to ban handguns.   The real culprit for most gun deaths in the USA.  

Sure most want to ban them but won't come right out and say it because they know its political suicide.   Instead they talk in code, slipping up every once in awhile with the real desires of gun bans.

It is really quite obtuse to think congress members like Feinstein, Pelosi and Schumer DON'T want them all gone and would do just that if they could.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
7.1.18  MrFrost  replied to  charger 383 @7.1.10    4 years ago

VA Senate bill16 makes possessing an AR-15 a felony.  

So? Why is it so important to own THAT gun? Can people not defend themselves with a shotgun? Hand gun? Hunting rifle, (which an AR-15 is NOT). 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.1.19  Sparty On  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.18    4 years ago

Does a gun have to have a specific use?   Can a gun be owned simply because one wants to own one or because one enjoys shooting it?

 I agree that not everyone should own one but random bannings of things in this country against EVERYONE exposes a very slippery slope against liberty.   Pretty soon, big brother might decide to take away something you enjoy.   Already enough of that going on.   Don't need more of it IMO.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
7.1.20  charger 383  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.18    4 years ago

cause I have an AR-15 and like it, it is of high quality.  I have owned it almost 40 years. Why shouldn't I have it? 

I also have a shotgun that works and looks like an AR-15

 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
7.1.21  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.19    4 years ago
Does a gun have to have a specific use?  

No.

Can a gun be owned simply because one wants to own one or because one enjoys shooting it?

Yes, but not without limits. Scalia ruled that the 2nd amendment was not unlimited and upheld the basis for laws banning civilian ownership of most military weapons, from rocket propelled grenade launchers to automatic rifles. Even switchblades and butterfly knives are banned in some States and those bans have stood up under constitutional scrutiny. In only a few States like Texas have they recently repealed some of their other weapon bans which they had in place for decades such as bans on tomahawks, clubs, collapsible batons, brass knuckles and switchblades.

 I agree that not everyone should own one but random bannings of things in this country against EVERYONE exposes a very slippery slope against liberty.

The "slippery slope" is a totally bogus defense as we've had specific bans on certain types of weapons for nearly a century now. The first gun law was enacted in 1934 and didn't lead to a confiscation of all guns as some claimed. We will never be free of guns in this nation, and while some might wish we were, just like some wish there were no abortions, we must accept that the minority that wish for total bans will never get their way because the law protects individual rights of which gun ownership is one.

I am pro-choice. If you want to own a gun, then by all means, follow the legal procedures in your State and buy one, that's your choice. But don't scream about your rights being taken away simply because you have to follow the law which in some states means going through a background check and registering the gun. If all the hoops that anti-choice proponents have put in place in their States trying to effectively ban abortion were being done by progressive States in regards to guns, where there was now only one gun store in the entire State that you could buy guns from and weren't able to buy them online or have one shipped from the store and you had to go there and get an invasive physical exam (have to check that anal cavity, never know what illicit drugs might be in there that would prove them unworthy of buying a gun, right?) all just to express your right to own a gun, conservatives would be screaming to high heaven. That would be crazy, right? That would be a slippery slope to gun confiscations, and is obviously a slippery slope to banning all abortions in some States as we've seen is their intent. But that's not what's happening in respect to guns, not even close. Gun sales are up, we have more guns than people in the US, and that's likely never going to change. All the majority on the left are asking for are common sense gun laws like universal background checks, limits on certain types of military weapons, bump stocks and large capacity magazines specifically designed for warfare, required gun safety course prior to buying a gun and some sensible red flag laws that merely slow the buying process down for those who have exhibited explicit reason to believe they may not act responsibly with their firearms.

None of those sensible gun safety laws would infringe on the 2nd amendment and none of them represent any slippery slope towards total gun confiscations or bans. I heard someone else say gun buyback programs were a form of confiscation which is one of the more ridiculous claims coming from the right. Buyback programs are not "confiscating" anything, they merely give a community an opportunity to get rid of unwanted and often unregistered firearms. No one is going door to door, house to house searching for guns to confiscate. It's a farcical claim on its face.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.1.22  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.18    4 years ago

Why not let people have some options? Shotguns tend to kick pretty hard - prohibitively so, for a lot of people. Hunting rifles can be very long and hard to manipulate in a home.

AR-type weapons are relatively easy to operate, have mild recoil, and can carry enough rounds that you won’t have to worry about running out. They’re pointable but not so long that they won’t go around corners easy, and can be easily accessorized with useful things like flashlights.

Handguns are well, handy, and are by far the weapon most commonly used to murder people. But no one wants to outlaw those.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.1.23  Ender  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1.21    4 years ago

Yep. Even the Heller decision stated that guns can be regulated.

Funny how some want people that vote to have a valid id and be registered yet at the same time want unfettered access to guns.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.1.24  Sparty On  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1.21    4 years ago
No.

Yes, but not without limits. Scalia ruled that the 2nd amendment was not unlimited and upheld the basis for laws banning civilian ownership of most military weapons, from rocket propelled grenade launchers to automatic rifles. Even switchblades and butterfly knives are banned in some States and those bans have stood up under constitutional scrutiny. In only a few States like Texas have they recently repealed some of their other weapon bans which they had in place for decades such as bans on tomahawks, clubs, collapsible batons, brass knuckles and switchblades.

 

The "slippery slope" is a totally bogus defense as we've had specific bans on certain types of weapons for nearly a century now. The first gun law was enacted in 1934 and didn't lead to a confiscation of all guns as some claimed. We will never be free of guns in this nation, and while some might wish we were, just like some wish there were no abortions, we must accept that the minority that wish for total bans will never get their way because the law protects individual rights of which gun ownership is one.

I am pro-choice. If you want to own a gun, then by all means, follow the legal procedures in your State and buy one, that's your choice. But don't scream about your rights being taken away simply because you have to follow the law which in some states means going through a background check and registering the gun. If all the hoops that anti-choice proponents have put in place in their States trying to effectively ban abortion were being done by progressive States in regards to guns, where there was now only one gun store in the entire State that you could buy guns from and weren't able to buy them online or have one shipped from the store and you had to go there and get an invasive physical exam (have to check that anal cavity, never know what illicit drugs might be in there that would prove them unworthy of buying a gun, right?) all just to express your right to own a gun, conservatives would be screaming to high heaven. That would be crazy, right? That would be a slippery slope to gun confiscations, and is obviously a slippery slope to banning all abortions in some States as we've seen is their intent. But that's not what's happening in respect to guns, not even close. Gun sales are up, we have more guns than people in the US, and that's likely never going to change. All the majority on the left are asking for are common sense gun laws like universal background checks, limits on certain types of military weapons, bump stocks and large capacity magazines specifically designed for warfare, required gun safety course prior to buying a gun and some sensible red flag laws that merely slow the buying process down for those who have exhibited explicit reason to believe they may not act responsibly with their firearms.

None of those sensible gun safety laws would infringe on the 2nd amendment and none of them represent any slippery slope towards total gun confiscations or bans. I heard someone else say gun buyback programs were a form of confiscation which is one of the more ridiculous claims coming from the right. Buyback programs are not "confiscating" anything, they merely give a community an opportunity to get rid of unwanted and often unregistered firearms. No one is going door to door, house to house searching for guns to confiscate. It's a farcical claim on its face.

Cool, we are back in familiar territory.   That is to say, i disagree with everything you said above, absolutely and completely.

Good times!

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
7.1.25  Nerm_L  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.1    4 years ago

Actually 'they' are not after guns, values, or freedom.  The fringe factions of both sides of the political divide are trying to control your mind.  'They' want to live inside your head.

You do know that less that 20 pct of the population elected Donald Trump.  And less than 20 pct of the population tried to elect Hillary Clinton.  Only about 75 pct of the population is eligible to vote.  It's virtually impossible for any politician to be elected by a majority of Americans.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
7.1.26  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.24    4 years ago
That is to say, i disagree with everything you said above, absolutely and completely.

You disagree that Scalia ruled that the 2nd amendment isn't unlimited? Or that States have had bans on all sorts of weapons which have been found constitutional? Or just that you believe a background check is a slippery slope even though we've been making gun laws for nearly a century and there has never been a real threat to gun ownership since? I appreciate the cut and paste and re-print of my entire post, but that's a pretty lazy way to make an objection and is often employed by those who have run out of logic on their side of the debate.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
7.1.27  Nerm_L  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.1    4 years ago
That is just fear mongering.

That's what Gov. Ralph Northam is doing: fear mongering. How would Northam enforce a firearm ban at the rallies?  Northam is depending on guys with guns to ban guns.  The only thing that's needed is to deputize gun owners and then the gun owners can do whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want.  A badge protects gun violence.  And Northam is depending on badges to control gun violence?

There has been more gun violence at high school sporting events than at protests and rallies.  Gov. Northam is engaged in butt naked fear mongering for political advantage.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1.29  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.3    4 years ago

I am a responsible gun owner and I am all for strict background checks. But I am also all for proper enforcement of existing gun laws instead of making new ones to cover the failure of enforcing previous ones.

 
 
 
squiggy
Junior Silent
7.1.30  squiggy  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.8    4 years ago

Beto.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
7.1.31  bbl-1  replied to  charger 383 @7.1.10    4 years ago

Personally, and all jokes aside, I simply do not believe weapons such as I was issued in Vietnam should be on the streets of America.  Unless of course, America ceases to be the nation it is supposed to be.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1.32  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  bbl-1 @7.1.31    4 years ago

If you are referring to fully automatic capable weapons, then I agree with you wholeheartedly. I am a Vietnam vet as well. Thank you for your service.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
7.1.33  cjcold  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.18    4 years ago

Actually a 5.56 AR-15 (with the correct ammo) is quite capable of taking down any game animal on the North American continent with the right person on the trigger. 

The AR-15 is a great all-around game-getting ranch-rifle. 

If I could only own 1 rifle, it would be an AR-15.

Have a .22 LR conversion kit for inexpensive plinking and training.

Although this liberal owns many firearms (from pocket pistols to high powered rifles), the AR-15 in 5.56 is the most practical of them all.

Banning the AR-15 platform would be next to impossible. It's America's gun.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1.34  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  cjcold @7.1.33    4 years ago

I own a Mossberg M702 Tactical Plinkster .22 LR. It is black and externally resembles a AR-15. It is the most accurate short to medium range .22 LR rifle I have ever owned. In a Survival situation, this is the rifle I will have with me  if I don't have my AR with me. Once had a lady who was a hard core anti-gunner tourist in my small town  see this in the back of my SUV and tell me I should be arrested for owning a "assault rifle"! I just laughed at her and got in my car and drove away.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
7.1.35  1stwarrior  replied to  cjcold @7.1.33    4 years ago

Yeah, but the Ol' M-1, 30 Cal Carbine can beat it hands down - kinda hard to find ammo though.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
7.1.36  bbl-1  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1.32    4 years ago

Spent 16 and a half months in Vietnam.  Extended for the 'early out'.  Air Cavalry, infantry------never used the full automatic option.  Did use the 'three round burst' option a few times.  I will stand with what I said.

Carried and used the M-60 occasionally.  Gawd, it was great.  I'd love to have one to be honest.  But, just don't think it'd be good for the neighborhood.  If you get my drift.

When I flew as part of the crew I was issued a Colt Model 1911 Army .45 Caliber.  Nice weapon.  I have two of them although one of them belongs to Linda, my better counterpart. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1.37  Ed-NavDoc  replied to    4 years ago

Another problem with Feinstein and her ilk at the time was they had no idea of the clear cut definition between assault rifle and assault weapon. It is a situation that still continues with many progressive leftist liberal Democrats to this day.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1.38  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  bbl-1 @7.1.36    4 years ago

I hear you about the M-60. I loved it too. As a Navy FMF(Fleet Marine Force) qualified Hospital Corpsman I flew as medical aircrew on USMC UH-1 Huey SAR/Medevac birds. Fired it often to protect my patients we had on board, but only to keep Charlie's heads down. I was given the choice of a .38 Special or a M-1911 for a survival weapon from the ship's armory. To the .38 I said "Oh Hell no! Give me the .45!".I would also love to have a M-60. As I live in the desert and own property out in the middle of nowhere, I could probably get away with having one in semi auto, but it would cost too much.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
7.1.39  GregTx  replied to  bbl-1 @7.1.36    4 years ago

I learn something new on this site every day. I didn't realize the three round burst option was around then.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
7.1.40  bbl-1  replied to  GregTx @7.1.39    4 years ago

It was.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
7.1.41  bbl-1  replied to  GregTx @7.1.39    4 years ago

The full automatic was stupid.  We had 20 round clips.  You'd empty one in a second and most of the rounds went wherever you weren't aiming.  Been there.  Never used it except on perimeter fire when we had to use up ammo.  And, our sergeants told us if we ever used full auto in combat they'd kick our ass.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
7.1.42  bbl-1  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1.38    4 years ago

M-60 in semi-auto would be stupid.  Defeats its beauty.  M-14 would be far better and much lighter to handle and carry.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
7.1.43  charger 383  replied to  bbl-1 @7.1.42    4 years ago

I have M1- A, which is the semi auto M-14, I like it

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
7.1.44  Split Personality  replied to  bbl-1 @7.1.41    4 years ago

You would be worn out changing the clips every 5 seconds. lol, if

you had unlimited clips, lol

 
 
 
squiggy
Junior Silent
7.1.45  squiggy  replied to  GregTx @7.1.39    4 years ago

“...three round burst option was around then.”

Not only that, internet math proves that there were 683,625,862 UH-1s used in Vietnam and each one had eight door gunners.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
8  MrFrost    4 years ago

If you want to see these turds run for the hills, set up a, "draft sign up booth".  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.1  Sparty On  replied to  MrFrost @8    4 years ago

A lot of Vet hats in this group Frosty.   A lot of them.

How you been?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
8.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Sparty On @8.1    4 years ago

How you been?

Been good, took a 3 week vacation. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  MrFrost @8.1.1    4 years ago

Lol, me too, about the same time frame it looks like.

Right back in the fight now though ..... oh well.

Glad to hear you are doing well

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
8.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.2    4 years ago

Glad to hear you are doing well

You too my friend, you too. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
8.3  Split Personality  replied to  MrFrost @8    4 years ago

ahhh, draft day, remember parts of it very well.

The Ted Nugent wannabes, sick as dogs...

And perhaps in an ironic sense, three guys wearing makeup and mascara for the first time ever, trying to convince the Sgt that they were gay.

Funniest shit ever, all of them were drafted.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
8.3.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Split Personality @8.3    4 years ago

Saw the same type of thing when I went into the Navy in the early 70's. My fist assignment out my basic Naval Hospital Corps School was the the medical clinic at the Recruit Training Command in San Diego. Saw some really funny shit when kids got off the bus. We could tell who was gonna be a problem right off the bat! Some of the funnier ones were those that asked the Recruit Company Commanders when they got to learn how to kill people?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
9  MrFrost    4 years ago

Saw one of these guys being interviewed on the telly and he said, "We just want the right to defend ourselves!!!". Dude had a rifle, a shotgun and a handgun on his hip. Looked to me like he was well defended as it was. I still have yet to see anyone make an actual attempt at repealing the 2nd amendment. 

I've said it before, i'll say it again. I wonder how these people would feel if a blue state banned the sales of guns except for one day a month, in one store, from midnight to 3am....on Wednesday...with no ammunition for sale. 

Not a violation of the 2nd amendment in any way. 

800

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
9.1  Jasper2529  replied to  MrFrost @9    4 years ago
Saw one of these guys being interviewed on the telly and he said, "We just want the right to defend ourselves!!!". Dude had a rifle, a shotgun and a handgun on his hip. Looked to me like he was well defended as it was.

Whoever you saw wasn't within confines of the approved rally area. No one ... I repeat, no one ... was allowed to enter the rally area with any type of weapon.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.2  Ender  replied to  MrFrost @9    4 years ago

I always wonder about the mental state of people that are so fearful just walking out their front door.

I worry more about people being sick or people that can't drive.

Some people act like their gun is some kind of pacifier to suck on.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9.2.1  Sparty On  replied to  Ender @9.2    4 years ago

Lately i wonder about the mental state of people who fear items legally owned by law abiding citizen that will statistically never, ever hurt them.   It's simply not rational.   They should worry more about getting hit by a brick truck or stuck with a knife because that it is more likely.   But they don't.

Some people just seem to have a need to take away that thing from other people that is not their thing.   Looking down their noses at the people who do enjoy that thing seems to be a requisite tactic for them.  

Very interesting from a psychological standpoint.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.2.2  Ender  replied to  Sparty On @9.2.1    4 years ago

I could care less about people owning guns. What I wonder about is people that have to have one on their hip 24/7. Like it is some kind of security blanket.

Then the argument that we have to keep guns to keep the government at bay is laughable at best. With government firepower, that is a pipe dream, if not just some weird talking point.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
9.2.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @9.2.2    4 years ago

384

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.2.5  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.2.3    4 years ago

It would never happen yet if it did, there is no way people could win against the armed forces.

Despite what some say, me having a shot gun or rifle would not stop their superior firepower. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9.2.7  Sparty On  replied to  Ender @9.2.2    4 years ago
I could care less about people owning guns.

Sounds like you do care but okay.

I've had a CPL for nearly 40 years.   Originally i got it because in my state, there was no legal way to transport a handgun from point A to B without one.   Things have changed a lot since then but no matter.   People who go to the trouble of getting a CPL, and get one, are not your problem.   People who can't get one usually are.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
9.2.8  GregTx  replied to  Ender @9.2.5    4 years ago

No probably not, but in my opinion it would be better to be a thorn than wheat to be reaped.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.2.9  Ender  replied to  Sparty On @9.2.7    4 years ago

My BIL has had a CCW for years. He taught my Niece and Nephew the how and how not of guns from an early age. Still go hunting once or so a year on land they own.

What I care about is people that seemingly worship the weapons. Some have an unhealthy obsession.

My BIL does keep one with him when traveling, the kids (not kids now) never do.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9.2.10  Sparty On  replied to    4 years ago
When going to school, or the theater, or a concert, or a place of worship

First off i appreciate the civil tone.   Not a lot of that going on around here lately.    Thx!

Well i can't speak for other states but in Michigan it is not legal to carry concealed in any of those places.   As for walking down the street, you SHOULD BE more worried about getting hit by a car, getting knifed or being attacked by a dog.   Those ARE rational concerns in many places and happen at a much greater frequency.

To me it is a slippery slope.   Just like you are likely concerned that the Fed might try to take away something like abortion rights.   They are both liberties i'd have a problem with if they went away    And like you with guns, i don't agree with abortion on all levels.   Start with one and clearly others could fall.   The framers of the Constitution knew that well and worked hard to put protections against that happening.   They did a pretty good job IMO.   YMMV.

I just don't see most anti gun rhetoric being all that rational.   An assault weapons ban will do little to make you truly safer.   Perhaps give one a little more a false sense of security but thats about it.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.2.11  Ender  replied to  GregTx @9.2.8    4 years ago

I just think it is a specious argument. Some may have an AR yet a drone with a missile would win.

 
 
 
Freefaller
Professor Quiet
9.2.13  Freefaller  replied to    4 years ago
And whose side do you think the majority of the military would take?

Lol, isn't that a reason not to need weapons?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
9.2.14  1stwarrior  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.2.3    4 years ago

You betcha.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9.3  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @9    4 years ago
if a blue state banned the sales of guns except for one day a month, in one store, from midnight to 3am....on Wednesday...with no ammunition for sale.  Not a violation of the 2nd amendment in any way.

How about if a red state banned abortion except for one day a month, in one store, from midnight to 3am....on Wednesday. 

Would that be a violation in any way?

I’m fine with some reasonable regulations around our various rights, but let’s be willing to have our eyes open to the fact that some people are genuinely trying to chip away at certain rights with the goal of eliminating them entirely. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
9.3.1  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @9.3    4 years ago
How about if a red state banned abortion except for one day a month, in one store, from midnight to 3am....on Wednesday. 

Funny you should mention that because that's essentially what is going on. KY and Mississippi are both exactly like that...well, to be fair, there are no PP's, and doctors will refuse to do them for fear of legal action. I have a close friend living in Mississippi, she and her husband wanted to have a second child, she got pregnant and at her first OBGYN appointment, she was told that having a second child put her at significant risk and she was told, by two different doctors, that she should abort the child. She had to drive to Missouri to have it done. 

So I must thank you for completely proving my point. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9.3.2  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @9.3.1    4 years ago
So I must thank you for completely proving my point.

It's meaningless, though, if you can't acknowledge that they all do it.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
10  Jasper2529    4 years ago

EOvADmrWkAIy1-e.jpg

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.1  Sparty On  replied to  Jasper2529 @10    4 years ago

Damn, get some locations.   Those hen houses are unguarded ....

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11  seeder  Vic Eldred    4 years ago

virginia-6-ap-er-200120_hpEmbed_3x2_992.jpg

Around 16,000 armed activists stayed outside of the Capitol grounds, where all weapons are banned until Tuesday night, while 6,000 unarmed members held their rally outside of the legislative building, according to the Virginia Capitol Police.

Lobby Day went off with no major violent incidents





No incidents!

 
 

Who is online




72 visitors