Virginia: The People vs The Authoritarian Democrats

a reply to: face23785

Man oh man. You extrapolate oddles from my one little line there don't you. I replied to a poster who had mentioned what the writers of the second contemplated. And while surely tech advanced from what was used in the war, it still was the main weaponry that was used during it. And even as they could guess that weaponry would become more deadly I have serious doubts that they could have imagined weapons of mass destruction in the hands of one person capable of killing a hundred perople inside of a minute. Do you disagree with that?

a reply to: ketsuko

And I"m sure that they were so insightful that they could envision one person sneaking a cannon into a church under his coat, put it down, run back outside, get a cannon ball, load it and light the fuse in a matter of seconds and kill everyone in the room. Bully for you Ket for stretching out that one line of mine into something silly.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Do you still beat your wife? Great argument DB.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: rickymouse
When a politician is sworn into office, they are supposed to be representing everyone in their district, not just the ones that voted them based on party lines. Yes, they can lean a little to that side, but they cannot abandon the concerns of those of the other political party completely, that is why we have policies and laws to protect everyone. The Liberals are not following the rules set forth by our forefathers that were put in place to protect all citizens of this country, even those of the other party.

True , and this is Why All Citizens of this Country Defend Each Others Constitutional Rights Regardless of Political Leanings .......

All those guns and not many law abiding citizens use them to kill innocent people. The people who use guns to rob others do not usually get those guns legally. We do need a little regulations to keep bad or mentally unstable people from getting guns, but banning guns is not the solution. If criminals know that people in their houses are defenseless, crime would go up. Many people would be defenseless against those who want to hurt them, many more thefts, rapes, and murders would happen. Even criminals know that it is not wise to break into a house if the people could have a gun. We would have to boost the amount of cops by five fold, and even then it might take them too long to get to a house. I think that these crazies want us disarmed to reduce the population of the country.

The senate approved Virginia budget bill, HB30, has an allotment of $250k “for the estimated net increase in the operating costs of adult correctional facilities resulting from the enactment of sentencing legislation as listed below. This amount shall be paid into the Corrections Special Reserve Fund, established pursuant to § 30-19.1:4, Code of Virginia.”

Allow the removal of firearms from persons who pose a substantial risk to themselves or others — $50,000
Prohibit the sale, possession, and transport of assault firearms, trigger activators, and silencers –$50,000
Increase the penalty for allowing a child to access unsecured firearms –$50,000
Prohibit possession of firearms for persons subject to final orders of protection –$50,000
Require background checks for all firearm sales –$50,000
Of note is that § 30-19.1:4 addresses the budget “Increase in terms of imprisonment or commitment; fiscal impact statements; appropriations for operating costs.”

link

There is also speculation that UN troops will be used as it becomes clear that some NG troops may have reservations regarding firing upon US citizens. It is unlikely those sentiments will be found among foreign borne UN troops.

i removed my response because it might thread jack.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

People could and did own their own artillery.

Of course, you wouldn't need to sneak it into the church. You'd mount it on a hillside nearby and fire from there, but the end result would be the same.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Can a US state invite foreign troops onto US soil like that? I'm not sure they can.

**EDIT**

But that the idea is being tossed around goes to one of my fears. If there is a second Civil War, left v. right, I am pretty sure the right could beat the left, but the left if globalist. They'd invite the world in via the UN, and it wouldn't just be right vs. left. It would be right vs. the rest of the world, and the mistake the left makes is that once they're here, they will never leave. It would basically be the end of the US because we'd be colonized and split by our enemies who all come to "help" the left.

a reply to: ketsuko

I've always thought it was going to happen sooner rather than later where the US falls to the same tactics it uses in other countries.

Polarize, destabilize, and let the "allies" in. Whoever cut the best deals at the end gets to stay in power.

The lines on the map change. It's a fact, and we never really know when it's going to happen.

Guess we'll really have to see what happens at the federal level. Don't really see that going well for any state.

Kind of funny. First civil war was considered North Vs. South. Maybe the next one will be considered Left Vs. Right.

Wonder what flag will be banned next lol.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: tanstaafl
"What, pray tell, makes you think the 2nd Amendment only contemplates 'hunting rifles and hand guns'?"

Possibly the possibility that the writers of the second amendment could only contemplate flintlocks, not hand held weapons of mass destruction that in the hands of one person could kill a hundred people inside of a minute.

Spoken like someone who has not read one word on the debates surrounding the writing, and adoption of the 2nd amendment.

Your assignment is to go read. Study. Learn just how wrong you are.

There are numerous references where the framers contemplated people being able to own/carry whatever arms were common to the militia of the time.

Since the stated purpose of the amendment was as a last resort for the Citizens to resist tyranny of government, I am quite certain they would have been fine with that very same meaning today, even with modern weaponry - and yes, that would include tanks and RPGs, although I wouldn't have any problem with those kinds of arms having to be registered.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: DBCowboy

Like I already pointed out, ain't no one running around killing a bunch of people with machine guns!! So, ya, seems like we can pretty much keep some weapons out of the hands of criminals...
And, I dont care what kind of penalty you slap onto those who are going around mass shooting a bunch of people! Most of them arent planning on sticking around long enough to face any consequences anyways..

I see people who want to infringe on the 2nd Amendment as no better than those who would infringe upon any other Right.

Sorry.

To me, any one who deliberately wants to infringe upon rights is fascist.

With the caveat that the Constitutionally created laws that have passed into law are not violated. Ones where the Justice Dep would naturally prosecute perpetrators for crimes such as murder or theft. Anyone committing such crimes deserve to have limited rights based on severity of offense to the victims. Limited to simple things such as the right to eat/sleep etc. But not total freedom to be easily released to commit more crime. For those who are not murdering people, they have to endure their own punishment phase also. They do that until their case has been properly adjudicated and they are off Probation .

With a chance to commit again, many do it again. It is a cycle for some of them in our local news. One guy in his 20's was caught and released after stealing cars within weeks of the last arrest for like 20 more auto thefts over the course of about 5 years. Finally he got into a chase that added up to the Judge withdrawing his bond and putting him back the gray bar motel. But they repeatedly didn't revoke the bond to be free until trial when the same damn Judge was seeing the cases. It was surreal how many times they said "OK, don't do it again and you can go".

Why are they letting certain people go? That one did happen to be black but it matters not what race, I think anyway.

a reply to: ketsuko

If it does kick off, I don’t see it as a Civil War so much as a Revolutionary War. And when the dust settles, a very clear message of stay out of our business while that state is taken down, reorganized and then returned.

But as I have said, this anti-second noise would settle down real quick if you demonstrate what losing an amendment’s protection means by just quartering some troops in their homes. I guarantee Northam would not be saying jack about Red Flag Laws if a half dozen Rangers where sitting around his breakfast table asking to explain himself a little more slowly.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I used to believe this idea that our right to bear arms is constitutionally protected so as to protect us from an overly zealous government. As well I still believe that that was valid, then and for a long while since the framing. However now I find it a futile exercise to believe that we can protect ourselves from the modern weaponry that has been developed.

The only way that could happen would be the big IF that you describe above, that citizens could own and operate their own tanks and RPGs and what ever else they deemed necessary to defending themselves from that government. Fighter jets? Military helicopters? Come on now, where do we draw the line or do we even bother.

And sure, I"m no expert on the details of history but I can only imagine that had the framers truly had any inkling of the state of the art weaponry two hundred years after their time that defenders of the second amendment would demand for their own use, tanks and stuff as you have just done, they would have thrown up their hands in futility for surely that kind of a nation is not what they wanted to see at all.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Here’s the thing. There are somewhere around 400-600 million firearms in the hands of 140-160 million civilians in the US. A simple 1% participation rate would be 1.4-1.6 million people. Rag tag, disorganized, undisciplined and using mostly low caliber weapons with 10 round magazines on average. Think 22LR - 9mm for the most part. Should be a squash match versus 1.7 million US active military.

Then you have to take into consideration that the rebellion is all ground troops with no Navy or Air Force and very little of those will be logistics and support such as medics, mechanics, cooks, etc. And a 10% turnout is 14-16 million. If every infantryman could be facing upwards of 15 rebels, it could quickly become a rout even if all they had was a 10 round 22LR pistol like a Ruger Mark III. But figure on the rebels to run around with equal-ish weapons like AR-15’s or captured M4’s as they become battle hardened.

And all that is assuming elements of the military do not defect to the rebellion. When odds say that they will rather than fight fellow Americans regardless of the reasons.


But all of the above means nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch. So long as communication is still happening with petitions and protest rallies. Even simple resolutions declaring a county a second amendment sanctuary is communicating a position to be heard or ignored at whim.

a reply to: Ahabstar

You know, I don't disagree with that from a strictly tactical perspective with conventional weaponry. Even the poster I replied to was suggesting though that the rebels could and should have the right to tanks and RPGs and the like. I just see that as madness. But all of that is conventional.

(And oh, thanks for that thoughtful reply. )

Should it play out as you describe, what would be left of infrastructure, what would be left of the delicate economic systems we now have in place? From how I see things, basically the entire civilian population would have to be turned into starving masses to support the needs of a rebellion such as you lay out above. It would be calamity.

And all of that is not even taking into consideration the advanced weaponry, some of which we already know about as well as that which we still have no inkling of. The sonic stuff, the electrical stuff, the brain popping rays, I mean who knows. I could start a list here but so what. There is likely stuff that could be used against us that would make whatever artillery we, the rebels could come up with moot.

See, I see it basically as a Watts situation but on a much larger scale. Remember Watts? The scenario of striking out against unjust authority in ones own community, destroying ones own living spaces?? That's how I see it. We might feel like great fighers for freedom but in the meanwhile destroy our own environment.

So while I continue to defend my own right go bear arms for my own protection from like armed bad guys, using the fight against a tyrannical government as the reason to allow other bad buys the right to weapons that could wipe out a shopping mall in minutes just makes very little sense.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: tanstaafl

I used to believe this idea that our right to bear arms is constitutionally protected so as to protect us from an overly zealous government. As well I still believe that that was valid, then and for a long while since the framing. However now I find it a futile exercise to believe that we can protect ourselves from the modern weaponry that has been developed.

The only way that could happen would be the big IF that you describe above, that citizens could own and operate their own tanks and RPGs and what ever else they deemed necessary to defending themselves from that government. Fighter jets? Military helicopters? Come on now, where do we draw the line or do we even bother.

And sure, I"m no expert on the details of history but I can only imagine that had the framers truly had any inkling of the state of the art weaponry two hundred years after their time that defenders of the second amendment would demand for their own use, tanks and stuff as you have just done, they would have thrown up their hands in futility for surely that kind of a nation is not what they wanted to see at all.

Dude, go talk to a service member. No one is going to fire on their own American citizens if SHTF. They would more than likely join the citizens. What planet are you on?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Lumenari

Okay, so explain to me, why wasn't it unconstitutional for the govt to slap some restrictions on machine guns back when the mobs were having open warfare with each other with them but now it seems that any type of restriction is unconstitutional?
To me, there is two reasons our founders would feel the people had an unquestionable right to bear arms. One is that they were necessary to provide food.. to me, this argument would eliminate any possibility for the govt to be able to issue a total ban on all guns. If all else fails, we should always be able to hunt for our food.
The other would be self defense... from wild animals and from criminals.
The third reason I hear often is the tyrannical govt, foreign invasion bit, which might have been something that would be relevant in the founders time but in this time is really quite laughable. Unless, of course you desire to throw in the fighter jets, missile launchers, and all those neat toys most modern armies are equipped with.
So, let's say I agree with the first two arguments. I dont really see the need for bump stocks, silencers, or guns that let you discharge that high of a number of rounds in such a short amount of time.

If you see no need for suppressors you evidently don't hunt.

a reply to: PurpleFox

What planet are you on?

Certainly not Mars. I"m right here on Earth, just like you. Is not one of the major tenets of military service that you follow orders. Is this not drummed into service men and women? Would you not think that this would come into play should they be called to duty to quell domestic disturbances? Pulleezze. Do you not think that they would also be capable of discerning which side their bread is buttered and hold with who they thought would be victorious? Maybe you are living on a fantastical planet where all service members are down home patriots unwilling to take orders.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

You amuse me sometimes. . .

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

For all those reasons you outlined, why do you think it hasn't happened ... on either side - civilian or government? It's like a smaller scale MAD scenario.

But consider, you have to be very, very aware that your elected officials, and especially the bureaucrats don't give a flying rat's ass about you and your life, so any measures to disarm the public are for another reason entirely. Don't you think they know they can't control the populace fully without risking that same scenario you outlined as things stand because they could push too far and set off the destruction of that which they seek to control?

So, yeah, the 2nd is the pivot point that keeps them from going too far. There is no other reason why they care so much about it. They sure don't care about kids getting shot. If they did, they'd cry more over inner city violence because it's the same type of violence that they use to attempt to justify gun control.