Recent PostsForum Rules
Next Topic Sign In to ReplyPrev Topic
FirstPrev123NextLast
Virginia Gun Rights Rally
51. Author: AbrignacDate: Wed, 1/22/2020, 11:40AM EST
victor809 wrote:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6664640-Patrick-Mathews-Detention-Motion.html

Apparently there was a white supremacist group that intended to start a shooting at the VA rally. FBI arrested them ahead of time.


Don’t recall the part about the rally, but I mostly skimmed the first 8 or so pages. That said, throw away the key and afford him due process. After, he’s afforded due process, find & melt the key.
52. Author: dstiegerDate: Wed, 1/22/2020, 11:43AM EST
"I like taking guns away early,...Take the guns first, go through due process second." - Donald Trump



I believe the one per month law would serve the purpose of limiting handgun purchase to one per month



But seriously, my argument isn't with the proponents, nor opponents of any of the legislation. My beef is with the hysterical misrepresentation of facts. By any one.
53. Author: AbrignacDate: Wed, 1/22/2020, 11:45AM EST
dstieger wrote:
"I like taking guns away early,...Take the guns first, go through due process second." - Donald Trump



I believe the one per month law would serve the purpose of limiting handgun purchase to one per month



But seriously, my argument isn't with the proponents, nor opponents of any of the legislation. My beef is with the hysterical misrepresentation of facts. By any one.


1) Don’t agree with Trump all the time.
2) I concur
3) Yep
54. Author: dstiegerDate: Wed, 1/22/2020, 11:58AM EST
As to gun rights/laws....I don't have any intention of arguing my thoughts with anyone.....no point...especially since I can't fully rationalize all of my own feelings on the subject....but here's some of my opinions, disjointed and contradictory they may be.

-My originalist thoughts on the 2nd Amendment are that it was primarily to prevent disarming the citizenry so that a future federal government can be overthrown if it gets too stupid

-The idea of anyone taking up arms against government today makes me think I'd be opposed to any of those kinds of groups thinking its a good idea

-So, maybe the whole idea of maintaining opportunity for anti-government militia is something I'm willing to risk losing

-I fully support limiting magazine sizes -- For crissakes, ducks facing my 12 ga. don't have to worry about me loading more than 3 shells....but NRA will fight to the death to defend the Dayton shooter's right to load up a 100 round double drum....really???? wtf

-I understand the difficulty in defining and differentiating, but I fully support trying to get to a place where what I consider to be 'assault style rifles' are more heavily regulated, if not outright outlawed. When not in the hands of criminally fd up people, they're little more than toys.

-I'm largely libertarian in my philosophy, so reconciling the above isn't easy for me

so.....that said, I don't really care enough one way or another to argue 2nd amendment much....I support looking for common sense answers (even regulatory) to gun violence....I also support facts and honest discussion over rhetoric and fake news

55. Author: ZRX1200Date: Wed, 1/22/2020, 12:58PM EST
Except gun laws don’t work....so there’s that.

56. Author: dstiegerDate: Wed, 1/22/2020, 1:05PM EST
None of them?
57. Author: victor809Date: Wed, 1/22/2020, 1:06PM EST
Anthony, the ones that everyone was rallying about were struck.

All that was being debated were the ones dsteig identified. I don't agree with them (I'm fine with former felons having a gun) but they are not the insane ones which started the rally)

Also, I don't know what page it was but they specifically discussed bringing guns and ammo and "throwing firecrackers into the crowd" to get the shooting started. Dunno why they didn't just start the shooting themselves if they wanted that... Sounds like a stupid rationalization to defend their actions....
58. Author: ZRX1200Date: Wed, 1/22/2020, 1:16PM EST
Nope
59. Author: ZRX1200Date: Wed, 1/22/2020, 1:18PM EST
4% of gun deaths are long rifle.


ALL LONG RIFLES.......not just the scary “black” ones....ALL.
60. Author: SpeysideDate: Wed, 1/22/2020, 3:17PM EST
I think an obvious answer would be for SCOTUS to more narrowly define the right to bear arms. Unfourtunatly I do not think that necessarily would be a good answer. Is anyone capable of rendering a non biased, non political definition? I doubt it.

My thoughts are rather similar to Dave's. Common sense answers would be best. But I doubt we will ever reach agreement on what those answers should be.

Follow the constitution, yes of course, but is the constitution still applicable? Is either side entirely right or wrong? Of course not.

In truth in this day and age a well armed militia would need much more than guns.

The problem isn't what guns does the normal law abiding public have. It is any guns criminals and insane people have. Yet who should determine who is a criminal and who is insane? This becomes way to Orwellian for me. I don't want to be a safe lemming. I want to be a human being who has the ability to excersise free will.
61. Author: AbrignacDate: Wed, 1/22/2020, 3:30PM EST
victor809 wrote:
Anthony, the ones that everyone was rallying about were struck.

All that was being debated were the ones dsteig identified. I don't agree with them (I'm fine with former felons having a gun) but they are not the insane ones which started the rally)

Also, I don't know what page it was but they specifically discussed bringing guns and ammo and "throwing firecrackers into the crowd" to get the shooting started. Dunno why they didn't just start the shooting themselves if they wanted that... Sounds like a stupid rationalization to defend their actions....


Not sure either, but you can’t fix stupid.

I do remember reading about that, just didn’t remember them specifying the venue.
62. Author: AbrignacDate: Wed, 1/22/2020, 3:33PM EST
Speyside wrote:

Follow the constitution, yes of course, but is the constitution still applicable? Is either side entirely right or wrong? Of course not.


Constitution not applicable? Maybe you should clarify. At face value that seems contrary to what you said before.
63. Author: gummy jonesDate: Wed, 1/22/2020, 3:34PM EST
i heard the rally goers were all blood thirsty racists
64. Author: SunoverbeachDate: Wed, 1/22/2020, 3:53PM EST
The problem as I see it is that the murdering fuggers are crazy at varying levels from batchit down to plain anger management issues. Figure out a way to address crazy fuggers and you have no more mass shootings and likely a large reduction in smaller scale shootings. If you just focus on the tool then crazy fuggers will simply find another one to use. Do I have a solution for crazy? Hell no. If I did I might still be with one of the ex girlfriends from years back
65. Author: Mrs. dpnewellDate: Wed, 1/22/2020, 4:34PM EST
I was amazed at how many of those armed black men at the rally where actually White Supremists. Who would have thunk?

David
66. Author: frankj1Date: Wed, 1/22/2020, 4:40PM EST
Barry White Supremacists?
67. Author: victor809Date: Wed, 1/22/2020, 4:44PM EST
Dunno why you think there's a bunch of black white supremacists... But I'll assume you came to that conclusion using your usual logic.
68. Author: ZRX1200Date: Wed, 1/22/2020, 6:40PM EST
Of course you don’t understand what Dave was saying....

Black lives Matter was there....ARMED and hanging out with the white guys who are being called names by fascists.
69. Author: SpeysideDate: Thu, 1/23/2020, 12:50PM EST
Not really Anth. The constitution is amended from time to time, not very often. The constitution should be the basis for all law in our country, IMHO. Pehaps the 2nd amendment is to vague. I am just posing the question. I am not suggesting to amend. Though I would like clearer definition on the right to bear arms so there can be no over reach.
70. Author: AbrignacDate: Fri, 1/24/2020, 7:58PM EST
Speyside wrote:
Not really Anth. The constitution is amended from time to time, not very often. The constitution should be the basis for all law in our country, IMHO. Pehaps the 2nd amendment is to vague. I am just posing the question. I am not suggesting to amend. Though I would like clearer definition on the right to bear arms so there can be no over reach.


Seems pretty clear to me.

Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


To put into perspective one must determine what was the sign of the times when the 2nd Amendment was ratified.

A well regulated militia
At that time we had a regular army as well as a militia formed by everyday citizens, not reservists, draftees etc. The militia was an all volunteer force whose members supplied their own arms. As such, should a militia be formed today, it would need to rely on its members supplying their own arms.

At the time of the revolution, the arms provided by the members of the militia where the exact type of weapons supplied to members of the regular army. It would be expected that if a militia formed today, its members would need weapons compatible with what they would be expected to face. Therefore, arms provided by members of the militia would need to be contemporary.

keep and bear arms
The potential militia members (virtually any citizen) need to keep those arms nearby and unencumbered so they may form up without delay

Shall not be infringed
Cambridge Dictionary wrote:
to act in a way that is against a law or that limits someone’s rights or freedom:


Arguments are made for banning military style rifles. Yet, the weapons of choice of the militia were period specific military style rifles.

Arguments have been made that in this day and age, a militia could not uprise. Certainly that same argument was put forth by many citizens in the tumultuous time of the revolution. Some would say it’s an impossibility now. Yet, that argument is irrelevant to the context of the 2a.
71. Author: USNGunnerDate: Fri, 1/24/2020, 8:11PM EST
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is spot on. Nothing to add, nor debate. That is what it says, and that is in fact what it means.

How an American can be ok with putting restrictions on other Americans because they don't like an activity or tool? That is the mob. That is oppression. That is simply wrong.

I despise Nazi's and the KKK. But they have a right to say and believe what they want. So long as they do not act on it and violate another persons rights or civil liberties.

That is what this country was founded on. The right to believe what "YOU" wanted without fear of being beat down by your government or neighbors.

You people that think otherwise need to rethink your positions. Seriously.
72. Author: victor809Date: Fri, 1/24/2020, 8:12PM EST
Anthony, weren't you the one who wanted ex felons not to have guns? Seems like an infringement/overreach to me.
73. Author: USNGunnerDate: Fri, 1/24/2020, 9:11PM EST
https://www.facebook.com/RangerUpFanPage/videos/112409970171316/
74. Author: DrMaddVibeDate: Fri, 1/24/2020, 9:12PM EST
Laws, who knew?

At the crux of it all are the Founders words..."SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

They threw the yoke of Tyranny off and beat the world's superpower at that time to create documents that forged this nation. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. To water them down is a severe injustice. Read the Federalist Papers and the quotes that our Founders had to say about the 2nd Amendment. Doesn't take a lot of time. Use the g00gl3.

I DARE some of you to.
75. Author: AbrignacDate: Fri, 1/24/2020, 10:36PM EST
victor809 wrote:
Anthony, weren't you the one who wanted ex felons not to have guns? Seems like an infringement/overreach to me.


Once a felon always a felon. There is nothing ex about that.

However, felons can still be citizens and so IMHO they too are entitled to the same 2nd amendment rights afforded others. Absent a bonafide emergency court order shouldn’t *common sense* legislation focus removing 2nd amendment rights *after* a person has been afforded due process? Otherwise, it seems the law is unconstitutional. Think about it. If a person isn’t a threat to society why should those rights be stripped once that person has paid his or her adjudicated debt to society. Seems pretty simple to me unless public safety is no longer the motive of those laws.
76. Author: victor809Date: Sat, 1/25/2020, 12:10AM EST
I never said it should. I have zero problem with prior felons having just as many guns as those who have not ever committed a crime. Give them handguns, rides, SMGs and grenades, I don't care. Your and my view is not the norm.
77. Author: victor809Date: Sat, 1/25/2020, 12:11AM EST
*rifles (not rides)
78. Author: victor809Date: Sat, 1/25/2020, 12:11AM EST
(f-ckers still have to get their own Uber)
79. Author: Mrs. dpnewellDate: Sat, 1/25/2020, 8:59AM EST
Abrignac wrote:
Seems pretty clear to me.



To put into perspective one must determine what was the sign of the times when the 2nd Amendment was ratified.

A well regulated militia
At that time we had a regular army as well as a militia formed by everyday citizens, not reservists, draftees etc. The militia was an all volunteer force whose members supplied their own arms. As such, should a militia be formed today, it would need to rely on its members supplying their own arms.

At the time of the revolution, the arms provided by the members of the militia where the exact type of weapons supplied to members of the regular army. It would be expected that if a militia formed today, its members would need weapons compatible with what they would be expected to face. Therefore, arms provided by members of the militia would need to be contemporary.

keep and bear arms
The potential militia members (virtually any citizen) need to keep those arms nearby and unencumbered so they may form up without delay

Shall not be infringed


Arguments are made for banning military style rifles. Yet, the weapons of choice of the militia were period specific military style rifles.

Arguments have been made that in this day and age, a militia could not uprise. Certainly that same argument was put forth by many citizens in the tumultuous time of the revolution. Some would say it’s an impossibility now. Yet, that argument is irrelevant to the context of the 2a.


Though spot on, I would like to expand on one point. In the 1700s the phrase "well regulated" did not mean what it does today. "Well regulated" at the time this amendment as written meant "well equiped, well supplied and well trained". A far cry from the "regulated and controlled by government" that many 2nd Amendment opposers like to suggest.

David
80. Author: USNGunnerDate: Sat, 1/25/2020, 9:19AM EST
Mrs. dpnewell wrote:
Though spot on, I would like to expand on one point. In the 1700s the phrase "well regulated" did not mean what it does today. "Well regulated" at the time this amendment as written meant "well equiped, well supplied and well trained". A far cry from the "regulated and controlled by government" that many 2nd Amendment opposers like to suggest.

David


And this. The language is clear.

The haters call the 2nd amendment sanctuary counties treasonous while cheering for the illegal immigrant sanctuaries. You can't have it both ways hypocrites. Leave the law abiding folk the hell alone.

Hammer the criminals. That's how it used to work and we didn't have all these problems. Think about it.
81. Author: CelticBomberDate: Wed, 1/29/2020, 5:55PM EST
Cops show up at guys house for attending Virginia Gun Rally location.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3QZV-AomtI
82. Author: USNGunnerDate: Wed, 1/29/2020, 6:20PM EST
CelticBomber wrote:
Cops show up at guys house for attending Virginia Gun Rally location.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3QZV-AomtI


That was actually before the event. He had been to the capitol walking around getting the lay of the land so when he got there he knew where he was going. Cameras picked him out as being nefarious. They sent the popo to check him out.
83. Author: CelticBomberDate: Wed, 1/29/2020, 6:50PM EST
USNGunner wrote:
That was actually before the event. He had been to the capitol walking around getting the lay of the land so when he got there he knew where he was going. Cameras picked him out as being nefarious. They sent the popo to check him out.



Really? Hmmm I should have watched the video! Frying pan
84. Author: DrMaddVibeDate: Wed, 1/29/2020, 7:57PM EST
Buckle up buttercup.

SB 240 Firearms; removal from persons posing substantial risk of injury to himself, etc., penalties.

Firearms; removal from persons posing substantial risk; penalties. Creates a procedure by which any attorney for the Commonwealth or any law-enforcement officer may apply to a general district court, circuit court, or juvenile and domestic relations district court judge or magistrate for an emergency substantial risk order to prohibit a person who poses a substantial risk of injury to himself or others from purchasing, possessing, or transporting a firearm. If an emergency substantial risk order is issued, a judge or magistrate may issue a search warrant to remove firearms from such person. An emergency substantial risk order shall expire on the fourteenth day following issuance of the order. The bill requires a court hearing in the circuit court for the jurisdiction where the order was issued within 14 days from issuance of an emergency substantial risk order to determine whether a substantial risk order should be issued. Seized firearms shall be retained by a law-enforcement agency for the duration of an emergency substantial risk order or a substantial risk order or, for a substantial risk order and with court approval, may be transferred to a third party 21 years of age or older chosen by the person from whom they were seized. The bill allows the complainant of the original warrant to file a motion for a hearing to extend the substantial risk order prior to its expiration. The court may extend the substantial risk order for a period not longer than 180 days. The bill provides that persons who are subject to a substantial risk order, until such order has been dissolved by a court, are guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor for purchasing, possessing, or transporting a firearm; are disqualified from having a concealed handgun permit; and may not be employed by a licensed firearms dealer. The bill also provides that a person who transfers a firearm to a person he knows has been served with a warrant or who is the subject of a substantial risk order is guilty of a Class 4 felony. The bill creates a computerized substantial risk order registry for the entry of orders issued pursuant to provisions in the bill.

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+SB240


and

SB 263 Concealed handgun permits; demonstration of competence, effective date.

Concealed handgun permits; demonstration of competence. Removes the option for concealed handgun permit applicants to demonstrate competence with a handgun by completing an electronic, video, or online course conducted by a state-certified or National Rifle Association-certified firearms instructor. The bill does not affect any in-person means of satisfying the requirement to demonstrate competence with a handgun under current law.

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+SB263


Plus 7 more bills introduced.

Still don't believe the DNC is a terrorist organization?
85. Author: Mrs. dpnewellDate: Wed, 1/29/2020, 9:03PM EST
But, but Victor told us that the bills being protested where killed weeks ago, and everyone knows that Victor is never wrong.
86. Author: SpeysideDate: Wed, 1/29/2020, 9:08PM EST
What DOC points out should be obvious to all. Thought police for lack of a better term have no place in America. Also the statistics do not back up claims that removing assault weapons will create a safer environment. Here is a random thought. Sometimes people die due to freedom being protected. I am not willing to trade in my freedom and live in a draconian society.

Now a question, and it is a serious one on my part. What would be the appropriate arming of a militia? Assault rifles would not last 10 minutes against the national guard. If the military operated in the United States cut that to 1 minute. In reality I doubt this would happen as oaths are to uphold the constitution, not the government. But it could. So how do you properly arm a militia?
87. Author: Mr. JonesDate: Wed, 1/29/2020, 9:19PM EST
Good thing Y.O.U. MOVED TO NORTH CAROLINA and not Virginia dpnewell....

AIN'T ????
88. Author: victor809Date: Wed, 1/29/2020, 9:35PM EST
Reread what I posted in post 20 DP... I specifically stated what was killed.
89. Author: victor809Date: Wed, 1/29/2020, 9:36PM EST
Not my fault it reading comprehension is poor here
90. Author: USNGunnerDate: Wed, 1/29/2020, 10:26PM EST
Speyside wrote:
What DOC points out should be obvious to all. Thought police for lack of a better term have no place in America. Also the statistics do not back up claims that removing assault weapons will create a safer environment. Here is a random thought. Sometimes people die due to freedom being protected. I am not willing to trade in my freedom and live in a draconian society.

Now a question, and it is a serious one on my part. What would be the appropriate arming of a militia? Assault rifles would not last 10 minutes against the national guard. If the military operated in the United States cut that to 1 minute. In reality I doubt this would happen as oaths are to uphold the constitution, not the government. But it could. So how do you properly arm a militia?


I'm with you Sir. I'll not be a serf to any man. Ever.

As to the question. First off, The Posse Comitatus act prohibits the use of Military troops inside the continental United States and in civil/law enforcement activities period. The National Guard must be activated by their respective governor to be used in an emergency in their home state. The cannot be federalized and used as such. The Posse Comitatus would kick in. So, hold that thought for a moment.

Now. Arms. What ever you've got. That's what militias are. The whole "militias won't last 2 minutes" is a straw dog that ain't going to hunt. There are more combat experienced folks out here than there has been since world war two. And 90% of them are patriots. And most are also armed to the teeth. Body Armor. Night Vision. Ammuniton. And most have stores of food and medical supplies laid in as well.

While I believe there are those active duty folks that would initially "follow orders" and squash civilian protesters/'rebel scum/cons/republicans", I think sustained military/LEO action would be fairly short lived.

A, The first time they encounter and put down mixed civilians, those that did it have to live with it.
B. Public opinion would go snake ****. It's bad enough losing our kids when they're deployed and volunteered to serve. To have them gunned down on American soil? That ain't going to play in Peoria.
C. There are a ton of folks out here not inclined to go along with a butt ton of experience in that very arena and know the TTP's. There are a lot that will mind their own counsel, right up until some civilians get killed in the name of "homeland security". That will generate a lot of attention.
And
D. One does not line up like the revolutionary war and go toe to toe with a vastly better armed and equipped force. One picks at the edges.

So, it's the same strategy that has always been used. Blend in with the populace. Lay low. Only strike when the odds are substantially in your favor. Avoid technology. There are a ton of books and papers on guerrilla warfare. It ties up a whole bunch of folks trying to quell it, and even more resources. It always has. Red Dawn baby.

I know. We cleaned up Iraq in short order and pulled out, but that was........................

Wait what? We haven't? We're still there? What the...................................................

Seriously. This would be some long drawn out ugly, ugly crapfest nightmare. American vs American? The civil war again? I do not relish the thought. Not one damn bit. A lot of folks would die, on both sides. Kind of like Thanos snapping his fingers, but not clean. And then, God knows there would be retribution on those that started it. Who ever set that in motion? God help them and anyone remotely connected.

Best to avoid all that if possible.
91. Author: DrMaddVibeDate: Wed, 1/29/2020, 10:56PM EST
Speyside wrote:
Now a question, and it is a serious one on my part. What would be the appropriate arming of a militia? Assault rifles would not last 10 minutes against the national guard. If the military operated in the United States cut that to 1 minute. In reality I doubt this would happen as oaths are to uphold the constitution, not the government. But it could. So how do you properly arm a militia?


Fair enough. To that you must grapple with 2A. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" was included. The Founders understood the power of taking hunting rifles off of the mantles and taking on and defeating the world's superpower. So far, America has behaved with restraint and we don't have people with M1A1's parked in the garage. Now with this legislation on the table do their words mean anything? I'm telling the rational people here that have guns and understand what they are, not the dip****s that think they're cute because they have a big mouth and use it...if they succeed in Virginia they can pull it off anywhere. The threat is real. The birthplace of Freedom's leadership of all places. Those that understand the freedoms we hold dear must be prepared to do everything to maintain them.

https://youtu.be/wpVvgNs8tqI

ANY person willingly voting for this is insane. Anyone putting them in power is a useful idiot. The stakes have never been higher.
92. Author: USNGunnerDate: Wed, 1/29/2020, 10:59PM EST
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Fair enough. To that you must grapple with 2A. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" was included. The Founders understood the power of taking hunting rifles off of the mantles and taking on and defeating the world's superpower. So far, America has behaved with restraint and we don't have people with M1A1's parked in the garage. Now with this legislation on the table do their words mean anything? I'm telling the rational people here that have guns and understand what they are, not the dip****s that think they're cute because they have a big mouth and use it...if they succeed in Virginia they can pull it off anywhere. The threat is real. The birthplace of Freedom's leadership of all places. Those that understand the freedoms we hold dear must be prepared to do everything to maintain them.

https://youtu.be/wpVvgNs8tqI

ANY person willingly voting for this is insane. Anyone putting them in power is a useful idiot. The stakes have never been higher.


Spot on.

I cannot fathom Americans that would willingly strip rights from fellow Americans. Because "Oh, I'm scared?" That reeks of McCarthyism. I'm not of a mind to put up with that nonsense.
93. Author: SpeysideDate: Thu, 1/30/2020, 9:20AM EST
Good answers both. But 2 additional thoughts come to mind. If the government chose to violate posse comitatus who would stop them? The president can activate the National guard and put them under federal control. I do consider these both extreme scenarios, but do not rule out the possibility of them happening. I do think the military would uphold their oath th the constitution, so the more plausible of the two is federal control of the national guard, though I do not know what oath they took. Look at the evil Germany committed against German Jews in WW2 that no one thought would ever happen as an example.
94. Author: DrMaddVibeDate: Thu, 1/30/2020, 10:07AM EST
Speyside wrote:
Good answers both. But 2 additional thoughts come to mind. If the government chose to violate posse comitatus who would stop them? The president can activate the National guard and put them under federal control. I do consider these both extreme scenarios, but do not rule out the possibility of them happening. I do think the military would uphold their oath th the constitution, so the more plausible of the two is federal control of the national guard, though I do not know what oath they took.



USNGunner wrote:
While I believe there are those active duty folks that would initially "follow orders" and squash civilian protesters/'rebel scum/cons/republicans", I think sustained military/LEO action would be fairly short lived.

A, The first time they encounter and put down mixed civilians, those that did it have to live with it.
B. Public opinion would go snake ****. It's bad enough losing our kids when they're deployed and volunteered to serve. To have them gunned down on American soil? That ain't going to play in Peoria.
C. There are a ton of folks out here not inclined to go along with a butt ton of experience in that very arena and know the TTP's. There are a lot that will mind their own counsel, right up until some civilians get killed in the name of "homeland security". That will generate a lot of attention.
And
D. One does not line up like the revolutionary war and go toe to toe with a vastly better armed and equipped force. One picks at the edges.

So, it's the same strategy that has always been used. Blend in with the populace. Lay low. Only strike when the odds are substantially in your favor. Avoid technology. There are a ton of books and papers on guerrilla warfare. It ties up a whole bunch of folks trying to quell it, and even more resources. It always has. Red Dawn baby.


Speyside wrote:
Look at the evil Germany committed against German Jews in WW2 that no one thought would ever happen as an example.


What did Hitler do to his nation first? He disarmed them. It's hard to fight the odds when you're outgunned. The Japanese credited the general population and the 2A as to why they didn't fly from Pearl Harbor to the mainland. They were afraid of the average citizen and their guns! Nowadays, you can spot who will be able to take care of themselves and who won't. Be wary of them because these are the geniuses that will give up their rights faster than breathing. It means nothing to them. They need free speech zones, support animals and Big Government's nanny state mentality to give them everything they need. These scumbags will be the first ones at your door seeking protection too. They trust the government and look where that has got us? All the way to a commonwealth giving up their God given rights a nibble at a time.

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+HB2

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+HB674

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+HB812

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+HB9

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+HB421

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+HB1004

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+HB1083


They're not playing.

What bothers me the most about the legislation is the confiscation without the giving back if you're innocent. That's not there. So, it really is about gun confiscation, putting you in a cell and choking down the rights we share.
95. Author: USNGunnerDate: Thu, 1/30/2020, 10:23AM EST
Speyside wrote:
Good answers both. But 2 additional thoughts come to mind. If the government chose to violate posse comitatus who would stop them? The president can activate the National guard and put them under federal control. I do consider these both extreme scenarios, but do not rule out the possibility of them happening. I do think the military would uphold their oath th the constitution, so the more plausible of the two is federal control of the national guard, though I do not know what oath they took. Look at the evil Germany committed against German Jews in WW2 that no one thought would ever happen as an example.


Well, I would look to the sheriffs that have come out in Virginia and are refusing to enforce the law. The Military are our kids. I do not honestly believe that the bulk of our folks would step into a Gestapo type role. I refuse to accept that. There are those that would, there always are. The .mil is a cross section of our own society. But the bulk would not, initially yes. But after seeing and understanding what they're being used to do? I don't think so.

And those that do, well, the French and Germans had their resistance. There always is when there is tyranny.

But, we are not Germany, nor is this the 1930/40's. The very reason our founders gave us a 2nd amendment is what's keeping the wolf at bay. This country is armed to the teeth. Those that would rule us know that. We know that. But I'm honestly concerned about what's going on in Virginia. New Jersey and Connecticut gun owners both refused to turn in their AR magazines after the bans. They just didn't comply. Nor would I.

They're going to push too far believing their own twitter feed nonsense and I'm honestly very concerned about how that's going to go. I think freedom would prevail in the long run, but at what cost?

This is an ugly deal no matter which way you look at it. But the constitution is worth defending. Especially against those that would subvert it. Those are the enemies of the state, because there is only one reason to violate the constitution. Power and control over the populace. The very reason the document exists.
96. Author: victor809Date: Thu, 1/30/2020, 10:31AM EST
I support the 2nd amendment, likely more than most here, but if you think the 2nd amendment is what's "keeping the wolf at bay" you're a f-cking moron. You're also likely tending towards paranoid schizophrenia,.
97. Author: DrMaddVibeDate: Thu, 1/30/2020, 10:34AM EST
HAHAHAHAHAAAAA!

The 2A are the "teeth" that keeps the other amendments in place. Without the 2A there are none.

You can support it all you want, but when you support those that want to take it away and stand on your soapbox spouting lies...nobody, and I mean NOBODY believes you.
98. Author: rfenstDate: Thu, 1/30/2020, 11:56AM EST
WHERE DID THE ORIGINAL POST #98 Go? Shana?
99. Author: Mr. JonesDate: Thu, 1/30/2020, 12:00PM EST
It's right above my post #99...fenster...
100. Author: teedubbyaDate: Thu, 1/30/2020, 12:02PM EST
rfenst wrote:
WHERE DID THE ORIGINAL POST #98 Go? Shana?



I think someone complained/narked
FirstPrev123NextLast
Sign In to Reply
Next TopicJump to TopPrev Topic