It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Virginia has gone anti human

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: kwakakev
I do not say a family should not be able to defend itself.


Holy crap dude, you said because of this law a family wouldn't be able to defend itself. It's bad enough you created a thread and don't even understand the subject, you're compounding this by not even remembering what you post.




posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
Takes a whole 30 minutes to get a firearm here...


Maybe he's bummed about not being able to get incendiary artillery rounds. Who knows? I have no idea what he's on about at this point.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

WTF? You want to twist my words like that? You want to twist the situation like that? I don't know what to say... The truth is there if you want it.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254



Seriously. Take your meds.


That is all you have now? What happened to a logical discourse? Reflection maybe? You are going to need better than that to change my mind.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



I have no idea what he's on about at this point.


Ditto. I liked your smart ass comments at times. Ball drop.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: kwakakev
Ditto. I liked your smart ass comments at times. Ball drop.


My smart ass comments are pretty much always a satirization of the topic, which I take the time to read and understand. You, not so much.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

I've been giving you logical discourse for seven pages. I've made my posts as ELI5 as possible. Meanwhile your posts are becoming less logical and filled with more word salad.

I'm honestly worried for you.

If you're not suffering from some kind of mental disorder then you need to stop drinking and go to sleep.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Go gaslight someone else. I bring up a new legislative ruling and you go on about 1987. Its all good, don't look at the new legislative terms, you say I'm drunk, tired and need meds. Well I must be to continue with this babble.

The facts are out there fore those that care, hmm....



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev


The facts are out there fore those that care, hmm....


I agree. I tried to edit my posts on the first page with my demonstration of the difference between the 1987 law and the proposed new law. But even though I was within less than four hours it wouldn't let me.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev


All I see is a gun pointed at my head. Martial arts is from the law of the jungle, survival of the fittest.


A wee bit more than just who’s the fittest goes into martial arts.


How I understand god it this it tries many paths to see what works in such a complex environment. One acceptance I have for the vaccination program is to weed out the weak. As a health minister I would not make it mandatory.


Cool. Totally irrelevant, but cool.


Keep shooting buddy, do you want to know what to do once out of bullets?


I come from the “thinkers before shooters” school of training. So no, I’m not really interested in “learning what to do once out of bullets” from somebody who so catastrophically fails in the “thinking” part of things.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Guns are not an option for most Aussies, cool you have that option to keep some dry powers. We got disarmed years ago. Now to hear someone wants to take away ones option to punch... Ouch...

Just bend over and die (nothing to see here).



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev


Now to hear someone wants to take away ones option to punch...


No matter how many times you repeat it, it still isn’t true. This isn’t one of those things where if you repeat the lie often enough it becomes truth. But it was very kind of you to highlight your disinformation tactics, and who’s playbook you’re working from.

Heil.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The Guardian Angels have done a pretty good job at intimidating criminals while not being armed.

But it should it be illegal to do it?



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 02:28 PM
link   
This state needs moar stand your ground imo



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Isn't anyone here concerned that this law is potentially unconstitutional and flies in the face of the 2nd Amendment? It is an attempt to make illegal being in a local militia, and drilling to be "well regulated" for the purpose of fighting an oppressive government by force if needed.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

It’s already illegal to conduct paramilitary training for the purpose of furthering civil disorder. All this law would do is make it illegal to do that for the purpose of intimidating others.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

What the hell does this have to do with China?



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: Shamrock6



Which would be perfectly fine under this bill, since that’s not being done to create a civil disturbance.


How will that work when your local Sensei has shut up shop? All it takes is a cowards punch to kill someone. Too much legalise for any local training to continue. What happens to all the routine, discipline and general exercise? Just more candy for Blomberg to take?


Everyone is walking around with open carry deadly weapons then. Balled up fists should be illegal too. Gun hating liberals all have them and use them to commit terror attacks; beating up innocent people who disagree with them.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Except that it doesn't: civil disorder arises from mass acts of civil disobedience, in which the participants become hostile toward authority, and authorities incur difficulties in maintaining public safety and order, over the disorderly crowd.

Meaning, all one has to do during a protest, sit-in, march, etc., is something as small as a disregard to police instruction (authority), and they are subsequently "guilty" of civil disorder, pursuant to its legal definition and history of enforcement and prosecution (which can vary slightly between states if there are additional local laws/ordinances passed). The law as it was initially written pursuant to 18 USCS § 232 has changed somewhat to allow for easier charges against citizens, through multiple case verdicts and interpretations.

One of the most important aspects of the law is not only discussing the text itself, but precedent as well as other similar laws that could have a direct impact on the enforcement of the law in question.
edit on 3-12-2019 by dothedew because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

It also helps to know how this law is applied, similar laws that may have a direct effect upon the one in question, and the significance of past precedent and case law that has been established, which demonstrates the difference in its real-world application from the black and white legal definition itself.
edit on 3-12-2019 by dothedew because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join