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

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  8 months 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
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Vic Eldred
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    8 months ago

Who created this so-called "crisis"?

Sanctuary cities for the Second Amendment?

A state of emergeny because of protests?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    8 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    8 months ago
Who created this so-called "crisis"?

I believe that was Governor Blackface Northam.   He's a Bloomberg style gun hater as you well know.

Sanctuary cities for the Second Amendment?

Yeah.  You gotta love it, I know I do.   Local law enforcement and governments telling Governor Blackface Northam that they will NOT//NOT enforce laws AGAINST the 2nd Amendment.  Isn't it amazing that some places coddle and entice illegal alien invaders and other criminals while they try to restrict the Constitutional rights of citizens?

A state of emergeny because of protests?

Yeah.  Gotta love that one too.  A State of Emergency because people were going to protest legally.  

Only in Bizarro World would this seem normal.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2    8 months ago

Yup, things sure look different when the shoe's on the other foot. Let's see how this one goes. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.2.2  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2    8 months ago
Isn't it amazing that some places coddle and entice illegal alien invaders and other criminals while they try to restrict the Constitutional rights of citizens?

amazed?  the anti USA left has been at it for yrs. 

amazing? no... just old news.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    8 months 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
1.3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.3    8 months 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
1.3.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.1    8 months ago

They won't be unarmed for long.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.3.2    8 months ago
They won't be unarmed for long.

What do you mean?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.3.4  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.1    8 months ago
all are peaceful and unarmed.

they are peacefull.. but unarmed? not all.

 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.3.5  XDm9mm  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.3.2    8 months ago
They won't be unarmed for long.

Are you indicating that the leftist ANTIFA thugs are going to arrive soon?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.3.6  1stwarrior  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.1    8 months ago

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

So much for being peaceful, eh?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  1stwarrior @1.3.6    8 months ago

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

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.7    8 months ago

EOugCekWoAA2asw?format=jpg&name=4096x409


Ah those Gov. Northam yearbook pictures!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.3.9  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.3    8 months ago

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

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.3.10  Sparty On  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.3.9    8 months ago
Emily Latilla

Never-mind .....

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.3.11  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sparty On @1.3.10    8 months ago
Emily Latilla Never-mind ..... 

jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.3.12  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Sparty On @1.3.10    8 months ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.4  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    8 months ago
Sanctuary cities for the Second Amendment?

better than sliced bread  :)

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.4    8 months ago

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

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    8 months ago
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.5.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @1.5    8 months 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!
1.6  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    8 months 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
2  Sparty On    8 months ago

Maybe they can activate antifa for security.

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

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @2    8 months 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
2.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    8 months ago

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

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3  seeder  Vic Eldred    8 months ago

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    8 months ago

Thanks for the live feed Vic...

On a side note, I'm happy to be in Texas since it looks pretty damn cold in VA now.  I guess the blood is thinning!! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1    8 months ago

Personally, I'll take the high desert in the AZ/NM/Mexico border myself. Chilly at night, but not bad during the day.

 
 
 
charger 383
4  charger 383    8 months ago

I hope this is large, loud and safe.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  charger 383 @4    8 months ago

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

 
 
 
devangelical
5  devangelical    8 months 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
5.1  Sparty On  replied to  devangelical @5    8 months 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
5.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Sparty On @5.1    8 months 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
5.1.2  KDMichigan  replied to  devangelical @5.1.1    8 months 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
5.1.3  charger 383  replied to  devangelical @5.1.1    8 months ago
many bused in

VCDL sponsored bus rides to Richmond from many Virginia communities  

 
 
 
devangelical
5.1.4  devangelical  replied to  KDMichigan @5.1.2    8 months ago

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

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
5.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  devangelical @5    8 months ago

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

 
 
 
squiggy
5.3  squiggy  replied to  devangelical @5    8 months ago

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

 
 
 
user image
6      8 months 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
6.1  lady in black  replied to  @6    8 months ago

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

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  lady in black @6.1    8 months ago

Which he said he was glad of.

You read what he wrote, right?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
6.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  lady in black @6.1    8 months ago

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

 
 
 
user image
6.1.3    replied to  lady in black @6.1    8 months 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
6.1.4  lady in black  replied to  @6.1.3    8 months ago

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

 
 
 
user image
6.1.5    replied to  lady in black @6.1.4    8 months 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.
6.1.6  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  @6.1.5    8 months ago

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

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.7  XDm9mm  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.6    8 months ago
And yet you are not including these cities: New York,

You mean that wonderful city where police can be assaulted with impunity?  That New York?

Los Angles,

Where they're essentially decriminalizing everything and ham stringing the police who want to actually enforce the laws?  That Los Angeles?

So you see PH, we can play the game all day long if you really want to.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7  Nerm_L    8 months 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
7.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Nerm_L @7    8 months ago

384

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.1    8 months ago

That is just fear mongering. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.1    8 months ago
That is just fear mongering. 

Who other than Democrats have acknowledged that they will confiscate peoples guns?   Do you really want a list?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.2    8 months ago

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

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.3    8 months 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
7.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.1    8 months 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.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.6  XDm9mm  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.3    8 months ago
I'm sorry but most democrats don't say they will confiscate guns.

Most Democrats are not running for President.

They want reasonable gun laws, like background checks. 

We HAVE background checks.   It's called the NICS system and is done for every sale from federally licensed dealer.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
7.1.7  Greg Jones  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.3    8 months 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
7.1.8  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @7.1.5    8 months ago

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

Prove it.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
7.1.9  Jasper2529  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.1    8 months 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
7.1.10  charger 383  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.3    8 months ago

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

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.12  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.8    8 months ago
Prove it.

Disprove it.

"universal" background checks essentially require a database of guns purchased (currently precluded by law through the NICS system).

Then with the current crop of Democrat hopefuls, most of whom embrace "buybacks" which are forced sales to the government or in normal verbiage confiscation....  it's a sell to us for what we offer, or we'll just take the gun anyway farce only lemmings don't understand.

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.1.14  Split Personality  replied to  Greg Jones @7.1.5    8 months 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
7.1.15  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.12    8 months ago
Disprove it.

I didn't make the claim. Sorry. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.1.16  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.2    8 months 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
7.1.17  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @7.1.10    8 months 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
7.1.18  MrFrost  replied to  charger 383 @7.1.10    8 months 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
7.1.19  Sparty On  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.18    8 months 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
7.1.20  charger 383  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.18    8 months 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
7.1.21  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.19    8 months 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!
7.1.22  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.18    8 months 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
7.1.23  Ender  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1.21    8 months 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
7.1.24  Sparty On  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1.21    8 months 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
7.1.25  Nerm_L  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.1    8 months 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
7.1.26  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.24    8 months 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
7.1.27  Nerm_L  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.1    8 months 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
7.1.29  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.3    8 months 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
7.1.30  squiggy  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.8    8 months ago

Beto.

 
 
 
bbl-1
7.1.31  bbl-1  replied to  charger 383 @7.1.10    8 months 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
7.1.32  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  bbl-1 @7.1.31    8 months 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
7.1.33  cjcold  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.18    8 months 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
7.1.34  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  cjcold @7.1.33    8 months 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
7.1.35  1stwarrior  replied to  cjcold @7.1.33    8 months ago

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

 
 
 
bbl-1
7.1.36  bbl-1  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1.32    8 months 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
7.1.37  Ed-NavDoc  replied to    8 months 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
7.1.38  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  bbl-1 @7.1.36    8 months 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
7.1.39  GregTx  replied to  bbl-1 @7.1.36    8 months ago

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

 
 
 
bbl-1
7.1.40  bbl-1  replied to  GregTx @7.1.39    8 months ago

It was.

 
 
 
bbl-1
7.1.41  bbl-1  replied to  GregTx @7.1.39    8 months 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
7.1.42  bbl-1  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1.38    8 months 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
7.1.43  charger 383  replied to  bbl-1 @7.1.42    8 months ago

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

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.1.44  Split Personality  replied to  bbl-1 @7.1.41    8 months ago

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

you had unlimited clips, lol

 
 
 
squiggy
7.1.45  squiggy  replied to  GregTx @7.1.39    8 months 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
8  MrFrost    8 months ago

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

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.1  Sparty On  replied to  MrFrost @8    8 months ago

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

How you been?

 
 
 
MrFrost
8.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Sparty On @8.1    8 months ago

How you been?

Been good, took a 3 week vacation. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  MrFrost @8.1.1    8 months 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
8.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.2    8 months ago

Glad to hear you are doing well

You too my friend, you too. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
8.2  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @8    8 months ago
If you want to see these turds run for the hills, set up a, "draft sign up booth".

I don't think the ANTIFA thugs have showed their ugly masked faces yet.

 
 
 
MrFrost
8.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @8.2    8 months ago

I don't think the ANTIFA thugs have showed their ugly masked faces yet.

Well, we can hope they do. I oppose fascism, as we all should. Though I do not support violence by either side. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
8.2.2  Jasper2529  replied to  XDm9mm @8.2    8 months ago
I don't think the ANTIFA thugs have showed their ugly masked faces yet.

Give them a little time ...

The fake news is reporting that ANTIFA thugs plan to have a presence at the pro-gun protest at the Virginia capitol on Monday, but they are claiming that ANTIFA is on the same side of the largely conservative 2nd Amendment proponents.

VICE   released the propaganda   on Thursday claiming that an ANTIFA group is “siding with thousands of pro-gun conservatives in Virginia.”

“I think it’s been pretty important for us to focus on the fact that gun control in America has a legacy of racist enforcement,” said “James,” a spokesman for ANTIFA Seven Hills, to VICE reporters .  

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/antifa-terrorists-plan-to-infiltrate-pro-gun-movement-at-mondays-rally-in-virginia/

Have you ever known ANTIFA to be peaceful protesters? I haven't.

 
 
 
Split Personality
8.3  Split Personality  replied to  MrFrost @8    8 months 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
8.3.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Split Personality @8.3    8 months 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
9  MrFrost    8 months 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
9.1  Jasper2529  replied to  MrFrost @9    8 months 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
9.2  Ender  replied to  MrFrost @9    8 months 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
9.2.1  Sparty On  replied to  Ender @9.2    8 months 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
9.2.2  Ender  replied to  Sparty On @9.2.1    8 months 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
9.2.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @9.2.2    8 months ago

384

 
 
 
r.t..b...
9.2.4  r.t..b...  replied to  Sparty On @9.2.1    8 months ago
Looking down their noses at the people who do enjoy that thing seems to be a requisite tactic for them.  

When going to school, or the theater, or a concert, or a place of worship, or driving to work, or simply walking down the street becomes a potential killing field, we have a situation that needs to be addressed. It is not brick trucks or knife attacks that constitute the outcry (and please save the specious statistics in blaming cutlery for the mayhem) it is the easy access to lethal weaponry that is the common denominator.

We've had numerous conversations on this topic, Sparty, and I would hope you know 'looking down' my nose is my last motivation. Until we all put away the slippery slope arguments and the broad brush generalizations, coming from both sides, we will never be able to have an adult conversation and construct a reasonable compromise, something that needs to happen...and sooner rather than later.

After all, we all will be going shopping at some time this week, we may be going to church this weekend, and we all have kids we know and love going back to school tomorrow. Here's hoping tomorrow is not that inevitable day. How many of those days we have to endure is totally up to us.

 
 
 
Ender
9.2.5  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.2.3    8 months 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
9.2.7  Sparty On  replied to  Ender @9.2.2    8 months 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
9.2.8  GregTx  replied to  Ender @9.2.5    8 months ago

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

 
 
 
Ender
9.2.9  Ender  replied to  Sparty On @9.2.7    8 months 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
9.2.10  Sparty On  replied to  r.t..b... @9.2.4    8 months 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
9.2.11  Ender  replied to  GregTx @9.2.8    8 months ago

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

 
 
 
Freefaller
9.2.13  Freefaller  replied to    8 months 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
9.2.14  1stwarrior  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.2.3    8 months ago

You betcha.

 
 
 
Tacos!
9.3  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @9    8 months 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
9.3.1  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @9.3    8 months 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!
9.3.2  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @9.3.1    8 months 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.

 
 
 
Sparty On
10.1  Sparty On  replied to  Jasper2529 @10    8 months ago

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

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
11  seeder  Vic Eldred    8 months 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

https://abcnews.go.com/US/authorities-brace-massive-gun-rights-rally-richmond-virginia/story?id=68328504&cid=clicksource_4380645_2_heads_hero_live_hero_image



No incidents!

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Kavika
TOM PA
bccrane
JBB


55 visitors