VA Democrats Drop AR-15 Confiscation After 1000s of NRA Members Storm the Senate

a reply to: AutomateThis1

From what I've read there's rumblings from the same kinds of people as were at UTR. So if that's the case I'd say there's legitimate worry that these people are racist and violent. Especially considering the number of credible threats being leveled at lawmakers.

a reply to: rnaa

The "Wild West" is pretty much entirely a movie invention. You were vastly more likely to be shot/killed in a large city like New York or Baltimore than you were in a small Western town. I once read that Tombstone earned a reputation for violence because they'd had four murders in the previous year.

Also, the Gunfight at the OK Corral is pretty much the only time a Hollywood-style gunfight ever happened in real life. People that got shot in the Old West were, almost without exception, shot in the back by someone who had snuck up on them.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Riffrafter

In states that are not trying to turn their citizens into serfs, it is an easy process. But that can change quickly after an election as is happening in Virginia now and coming soon in Ohio, just not as draconian laws are proposed. And to be fair, Virginia has backed down a little.

Yeah I plan on doing a thread about it sooner or later. Just have to do it in such a way as to not be an endorsement due to the T&C’s and waiting on a certain milestone as well.

I'm looking forward to seeing your thread.

In the meantime, here's a picture of my S&W to make you feel better.

I don't think it's against the T's & C's as it's just sitting next to my cable remote control on my coffee table.

We'll see I guess...

a reply to: Ahabstar

Kurt Russell’s Tombstone is probably the best movie on it factually, but barely scratches the surface of the whole story. But compared to My Darling Clementine and Gun Fight at the O.K. Corral, it is light years ahead.

One of my all time favorite movies!

Val Kilmer is in his finest role - hands down!

a reply to: Riffrafter

As for Doc killing Johnny Ringo. Not as depicted, and probably not at all as Doc was last seen some 550 miles away from where Ringo was found a few days later. Not impossible, just highly improbable. And some of the things that happened in the timeframe of the movie happened a couple years before. And Wyatt never saw Doc in his deathbed.

But oddly enough Dave Rudabaugh from Young Guns 2, did ride with Billy the Kid and did ride with the Clanton’s during the timeframe of the movie. The real Doc played cards with him years before and would have seen him on Wyatt’s Revenge Ride. And the real Wyatt was sent after him by Bat Masterson from Dodge City which was when he initially met Doc.

Big Nosed Kate was Doc common law wife and lived until the 1940’s, I think. So the Old West really isn’t that far removed from us today if you think about it. As kids we watched stories of basically great (great in some cases) grandparents. My great grandfather was a boy during the Civil War, but grandma was a child from his second marriage and she had half-brother that was 30 years her elder to put it in perspective.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: rnaa

The "Wild West" is pretty much entirely a movie invention. You were vastly more likely to be shot/killed in a large city like New York or Baltimore than you were in a small Western town. I once read that Tombstone earned a reputation for violence because they'd had four murders in the previous year.

Also, the Gunfight at the OK Corral is pretty much the only time a Hollywood-style gunfight ever happened in real life. People that got shot in the Old West were, almost without exception, shot in the back by someone who had snuck up on them.

Correct.

Guns were expensive and remarkably few people owned them. They were often poorly maintained and ammunition could be unreliable.

Movies are entertainment, not historical documentaries.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: rnaa

But the Earps were enforcing the Tombstone ordinance by confiscating their guns that they had on them. That was the confrontation, to remove and hold their guns.

Again, no, it was NOT about confiscation. Words matter.

The Tombstone ordinance did NOT involve confiscation, and the Earps were NOT attempting to confiscate their guns; (Edit=>) "to remove and hold their guns" yes.

The ordinance required owners to store their guns (and large knives and dirks) in designated repositories while within the city limits and to take them with them when they leave (and the ordinance also provided for peaceful movement to and from those repositories). That has absolutely no relationship to confiscation and the Earps were not empowered to confiscate anything.

If anything, the Earps were trying to IMPOUND the weapons - though the words and actions of the Clantons ruled out any likelihood of that happening peacefully - and the Earps were more than happy to confront them on their own terms.

FYI:
Confiscate: (from the Latin confiscare "to consign to the fiscus, i.e. transfer to the treasury") is a legal form of seizure by a government or other public authority. Edit: 'transfer to the treasury' => take PERMANENT OWNERSHIP

Impound: seize and take legal custody of (something, especially a vehicle, goods, or documents) because of an infringement of a law. Edit: 'take legal custody' => take 'TEMPORARY POSSESSION"
For example,

1) vehicles illegally parked and causing a nuisance are IMPOUNDED, not confiscated. The owners can retrieve them when the issue is handled (fine paid, whatever).

2) vehicles used in the commission of certain crimes or are the fruits of crime are CONFISCATED, not merely impounded. The owners FORFEIT any rights to the vehicle and the government can use it or destroy it as it sees fit.

Once again, Tombstone's ordinance had NOTHING to do with confiscation.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Of the original five bills, three have passed the Virginia Senate and are on the way to the House. The three are:

1. Only one hand gun purchase per 30 days. (Hampers purchase of private property)
2. Localities can ban guns from public events (which overturns a current law)
3. A background check is required on all private transfers. (No more person to person sales of private property without a licensed mediator to perform the background check)

I knew these were in the works, I'm glad that there weren't any last minute pushes for something more draconian.

I also support all 3. Especially # 2. Living in Charlottesville during that statue debacle was a little scary at times. Obviously nothing happened beyond the events of that day, but there were all sorts of strange characters walking around the Downtown Mall area for days afterwards.

It was such a shame. Charlottesville is such a *beautiful* city with so much history, things to do, places to eat (over 300 restaurants) etc. And neither of the idiots on either side during that terrible day were from Charlottesville. All out of towners...

a reply to: Riffrafter

2. Is not draconian. I would actually want that in place if the event was an Annual Pickpocketers and Murderers Convention.


1. Is a pretty heavy handed restriction. Especially on historical collectors. You had the opportunity to buy Billy the Kid’s pistol and John Dillinger’s Derringer...too bad. Neither one of these would be shot, or if so just once in a controlled environment to say that you had. Personally I do shootable collectibles, common guns that are no longer made or have a unusual history. Like a West Germany made or earlier imports that had a second stamp on the frame/slide.

3. Is a backdoor to regulation to registration and database. Because it now requires a middleman to conduct a sale, that firearm is no longer yours in the same manner it once once. Your local gun shop will do it for a fee and technically makes the dealer a straw purchaser by definition. If a government agency is mad3 for a lower cost solution...how long will the transfer be held up for ballistics testing to make sure that it is not a wanted gun? Or better yet, just a test fire tank to ensure the gun is “in safe working order” since ALL information will be taken (backdoor registration and database btw).

Sorry. I remain negatively suspicious of anyone that also wants to Willy Nilly gun grab and has admitted as much with his other laws.

a reply to: Riffrafter

I think you forgot about eyewitness statements that the man who plowed into protestors was being chased by a member of antifa armed with an ar15

Also impound only deprives people who follow the law, not criminals so it is disarmament

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: AutomateThis1

From what I've read there's rumblings from the same kinds of people as were at UTR. So if that's the case I'd say there's legitimate worry that these people are racist and violent. Especially considering the number of credible threats being leveled at lawmakers.

Are there some people that are violent and racist who are planning to take advantage of this protest? Sure.

Does that equate into all 2A supporters as being white nationalists/supremists and/or mentally ill? No.

Yes precautions and actions should be taken to prevent people like white supremacists from causing havoc.

But law abiding citizens who are there for the sole purpose of showing support for the 2nd Ammendment have a legitimate reason for being there.

Also, in my opinion these lawmakers and politicians who support these bills should be threatened. They are against the people of Virginia, and should be taken out of their positions and not allowed to practice law or be a politician ever again.

If they respected the citizens of Virginia none of this would be happening.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

The Question really is why do you want your AR15 so bad???

If you are honest, you should hopefully realize that it will never work. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight, and you don't bring a AR15 to a sonic weapon fight.

the only purpose is to thin the population and make us even easier to control

a reply to: RenaJN

Elaborate please.

a reply to: AutomateThis1

Believers in the 2nd amendment think this allows them to form a militia, a militia who's sole purpose is to regulate or overthrow the government.
This is fundamentally flawed. While I do acknowledge that high powered semi automatic weapons would be helpful due to their ability to penetrate body armor, in general you aren't performing a revolution armed only with guns.

Let's say you could get 1000 people armed with AR15 and somehow convince them to storm the capital building, do you honestly believe the government of the Unities States of America doesn't have a counter measure to this?

There have been huge advancements made in the realm of sonic crowd control weapons, an example from 2009...www.youtube.com...

What other weapons do you think they have and what is your AR15 going to do to help you?
By no means am I advocating for a constitutional protected right to bear dooms day devices, but I am saying the pen has to be mightier the sword because the sword will be ineffective against such a strong power.

a reply to: RenaJN

Alright, first of all. The constitution isn't a belief system. So, there are no 2nd Amendment believers. It's a right all US citizens have whether they choose to practice it or not.

Second of all, you're not bringing anything new to the discussion.

I could pick your statement apart quite easily, because you're just speaking more of the same hyperbole.

During my time in the military I got to play with all kinds of new toys. "Sonic weapons" like the LRAD are a joke. I've used them and had them used on me. They're a nice deterrant for the less determined, but against a prepared force it's just an annoyance.

I'm inclined to believe you're not very familiar with weaponry, because you continue to use AR15. You do realize that there are more types of rifles than the AR type?

do you honestly believe the government of the Unities States of America doesn't have a counter measure to this?

what is your AR15 going to do to help you?

Statements like these just come across as an appeal to emotion. Quite frankly your whole post does.

Part of the issue for individuals such as yourself is that you focus too much on the tool and don't give enough credit to the people who hold fast to the ideology of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution as whole.

Because as much as you speak about the pen being mightier than the sword the pen is what wrote the Constitution, but without the people who support and defend the Constitution it would be meaningless. The pen can wrote all the nice words it's owner wishes, but without a backing force it is useless.

What really irks me, is that individuals such as yourself think that in the face of oppression, tyranny, injustice, and however else one can define exploitation that people should just forfeit and let it happen.

Wether you want to believe it or not their are people who would rather fight and die for what they believe in.

Since you like quotes here's some good ones for you.

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Benjamin Franklin

“Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.” - Abraham Lincoln

“When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.” - John Basil Barnhill

“Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of resistance.” - Woodrow Wilson

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.” - Hubert H. Humphrey

Individuals who think as you do lack courage. You would be the kind to turn in a brother over fear of your own life. You would sell your children to the powers that be and strip them of their individual autonomy.

Grow a spine.

a reply to: RenaJN

Maybe because the Virginia Constitution spells it all out.

Ohio’s is a little more hardcore. But unlike VA, Ohio can not recall the Governor. But we can abolish the state government on demand. Oh, and unlike Virginia, we can petition anything directly to the ballot for the people to decide and leave the state out of it. Like an new law that says that the Governor cannot pants in public under penalty of removal from office (just to be silly).

Time will tell.

originally posted by: RenaJN
By no means am I advocating for a constitutional protected right to bear dooms day devices, but I am saying the pen has to be mightier the sword because the sword will be ineffective against such a strong power.

I know, right! Imagine if some superpower went into a Southeast Asian jerkwater country to kick the Communist **** out of them and all those Commie militia members had for defense were some guns. They wouldn't stand a friggin chance.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Or into some mid-eastern/asian nation to kick terrorist ass...and find that guys and gals armed with rifles are more than able to fight back...

Odd that, no?

originally posted by: seagull
Or into some mid-eastern/asian nation to kick terrorist ass...and find that guys and gals armed with rifles are more than able to fight back...

Odd that, no?

If we aren't willing to go total war there why does anyone think it will happen here?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Difference between fighting commies over there and commies fighting to take control of America maybe?