Virginia: The People vs The Authoritarian Democrats

a reply to: infolurker
There's got to be a secondary proposal to administer once the gun grab is "successful?"

Is there any way to view proposals on the circulation circuit, if there be such a thing?

I know I know, refer to page such and such in 1984.

a reply to: dawnstar

You know the AR model is a very common hunting rifle these days right? Also shooting to scare a bear is not the safest thing if you live anywhere around other people.

a reply to: dawnstar

It bans pistols with a magazine size grater than 10, the same ban that was found unconstitutional in CA.

a reply to: RickyD

It also bans rifles that "look" scary.

a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the rifle

Has any of these mental case Democrats talked about making people "comfortable" before any kill shots happen ?

😧

a reply to: RickyD

Outside of the gunsmith training... what makes them unconstitutional?
I mean, one argument is that the national guard serves as the well trained militia. I take it you dont see it that way though. I kind of think that your argument would be more like you should be able to arm yourself to the point that you could effectively resist a tyrannical govt. Well, out national guard could possibly stand a chance, I mean they are much better equipped than we the people are. So, do you also consider it unconstitutional to prohibit we, the people from owning machine guns, missile launchers, fighter jets, nuclear weapons?
The national guard is a well trained militia, just like the constitution allows. A bunch of oosely knit wannabe soldiers that meets occasionally to romp around in the forest playing war really isnt.

a reply to: RickyD

Shhhhh... I am trying to convince myself that my neighbors have enough common sense not to aim their guns in my direction.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well, then, take it to the courts and let the courts decide on this law. Yous claiming its unconstitutional isnt gonna carry much weight.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: RickyD

Outside of the gunsmith training... what makes them unconstitutional?
I mean, one argument is that the national guard serves as the well trained militia. I take it you dont see it that way though. I kind of think that your argument would be more like you should be able to arm yourself to the point that you could effectively resist a tyrannical govt. Well, out national guard could possibly stand a chance, I mean they are much better equipped than we the people are. So, do you also consider it unconstitutional to prohibit we, the people from owning machine guns, missile launchers, fighter jets, nuclear weapons?
The national guard is a well trained militia, just like the constitution allows. A bunch of oosely knit wannabe soldiers that meets occasionally to romp around in the forest playing war really isnt.

The term "militia" was redefined by the Militia Act of 1903.

Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is used to describe two classes within the United States:

Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.

Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

A third militia is a state defense force. It is authorized by state and federal laws.

Other then that point, your understanding of the Second Amendment is so flawed that there is no reason to rationally discuss it with you.

/facepalm

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well, then, take it to the courts and let the courts decide on this law. Yous claiming its unconstitutional isnt gonna carry much weight.

That is not my claim, the 9th circuit court of appeals have already ruled.

The NRA-supported case had already been up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the question of whether the law’s enforcement should be suspended during proceedings on its constitutionality. Last July, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Benitez’s suspension of enforcement and sent the case back to him for further proceedings on the merits of the law itself.

Judge Benitez rendered his opinion late Friday afternoon and handed Second Amendment supporters a sweeping victory by completely invalidating California’s 10-round limit on magazine capacity. “Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts,” he declared.

www.nraila.org...

a reply to: Lumenari

Im glad someone brought this up. I was intending to say that they really #ed up in 1903 with "The Dick Act". Technically Trump could federalize the Virginia National Guard and shut this down.

Now I am pretty good at making memes to be funny and to get a point across. But honest to God, I can’t come up with anything that explains the situation better than the State Flag of Virginia does. And yet still, here we are.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The 9th circuit court is almost always overturned. Literally has an 80% overturn on cases brought to them.

originally posted by: dawnstar

Maybe I am wrong, but I think the actual weapons that they are going after are the ak style CV weapons, bump stocks, and silencers... I am probably wrong in that understanding, but it's not like the op, or anyone else that has actually clarified just what they want to confiscate, if anything. All I know is that all of a sudden counties and cities around here started deciding where they wanted to stand on the issue, and I am wondering just what kinds of weapons I can offer sanctuary to. Maybe I will write to my county representatives and ask them if out sanctuary extends out to missile launchers... and if not, why not.

Here you go
Line 397.

They're talking about banning "assault weapons" and then expanding that definition to mean pretty much any firearm. I think the only one I have in my home that doesn't break these rules in one way or another is a a pellet gun- not currently regulated by the ATF, and you can have it shipped right to your door... because it uses compressed gas instead of an explosive to move the projectile.

There are very likely a bunch of hunting rifles that wouldn't be banned, but at this point they're traditional bolt actions for deer hunting. Not something you'd want for hogs, coyote, or even rabbits and squirrels... Certainly not for self defense, and practically worthless against tyranny- Or a ground invasion, which IMO is more likely... since the majority of our armed forces wouldn't fire when ordered on civilians. Those who would, would likely be executed by their fellow soldiers early on.

So- what's the point here?
To take firearms out of the hands of american citizens.
Looks pretty cut and dry to me- If the perps can't be voted out, they should be strung up for treason.

a reply to: infolurker

Well that was an interesting read. It says a lot about the hypocrisy of both the AG and the Governor. As I was reading through it I was thinking how it seemed the Governor and AG were making or changing the laws or statues themselves along with going against their own constitution and people in general.

Anyway toward the end this quote caught my eye...……..

This ancient doctrine is reflected in the words of Roman Emperor Trajan to a subordinate: “Use this sword against my enemies, if I give righteous commands; but if I give unrighteous commands, use it against me.”

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.

a reply to: dawnstar

It's not about seeing a need. It's about having a right.

Lots of people don't see a need to vote. You know as well as I do that the majority of people in this country who could, simply don't, but it's still their right to use or not as they choose. *Need* doesn't factor into it.

a reply to: infolurker

I'm sorry where's the "threat" ?

a reply to: dawnstar
You not seeing a need has nothing to do with whether it's protected by the 2nd. What do you mean by firing so fast anyways?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: dawnstar

It's not about seeing a need. It's about having a right.

It's NOT about having a right it's about having "A well regulated Militia" which includes gun regulations.