Law Virginia governor declares state of emergency to ban legal gun carrying. People could die here.

[7437]

The very act of writing it was a rebellion. The events that led to its creation was a rebellion
It's ratification as the basis for a new autonomous nation was a rebellion.

Guns are guns are guns. Some are just more efficient than others or have a more specialized role. Either you can have guns or you can't. Any argument on the type is farcical. They're all tools, they all can kill. If its of such importance that firearms be taken out of the handa of civilians than politicians need to nut up and just repel the 2nd. If most of America agree there shouldn't be any issues surely.

The constitution is not dictated by what "most of the country" wants.

The constitution also doesnt say hou can have a gun. It says you can have "arms". Would you say all "arms" are totally cool for any person to acquire?

 

[BEER]

Yes I did, in the first paragraph. Learn to read.

I read just fine.

You swapped some commas around, and left out the most important part.

Want to try again, or is that your final answer?

 

[7437]

I read just fine.

You swapped some commas around, and left out the most important part.

Want to try again, or is that your final answer?

Final answer. Is it too confusing? I dont personally think the amendment needs some special magical rewriting.

Now, care to answer what the part I asked about means?

 

[all caps]

The constitution is not dictated by what "most of the country" wants.

The constitution also doesnt say hou can have a gun. It says you can have "arms". Would you say all "arms" are totally cool for any person to acquire?

Well if we're gonna get technical.. let's go all the way and talk about the right to keep and protect your family coat of arms, which none of us have.

And now that I think about it... epstein had one at his ranch

 

[Cooz]

Did you, yourself, read any of those?

It's a ton of needless red tape as to whether or not to commend random dudes for random shit. And yes, if it meant putting the citizens in the booth to vote for random bureaucracy, I would support it.

I'm sure you're smart enough to know that I meant the people should vote on proposals for shit that actually impacts citizens.

The state, myself included, may have voted blue, but I guarantee you that they didn't vote blue to choke out our second amendment rights.

You should have paid attention to who you voted for. The people voted these officials into office for precisely this reason.

 

[BEER]

Final answer. Is it too confusing? I dont personally think the amendment needs some special magical rewriting.

Now, care to answer what the part I asked about means?

Well, again, you simply reworded the amendment but left out the phrase that is most important.

So, your belief is that the amendment means what it clearly states, except for the part about it not being infringed?

Good to know. Leaving that part out is what makes your own question viable.

Luckily, I, and Virginians alike, don't leave that part out.

 

[BEER]

You should have paid attention to who you voted for. The people voted these officials into office for precisely this reason.

We paid attention. Northam was pretty clear about leaving gun laws alone. He wouldn't have won otherwise. A lot of Virginians were worried about it. As I've mentioned multiple times in this thread, even if you're from the south, you know that a ton (if not most) of liberals and blue voters are second amendment supporters.

 

[7437]

Well, again, you simply reworded the amendment but left out the phrase that is most important.

So, your belief is that the amendment means what it clearly states, except for the part about it not being infringed?

Good to know. Leaving that part out is what makes your own question viable.

Luckily, I, and Virginians alike, don't leave that part out.

Shall not be violated, shall not be infringed, same thing.

I guess the reputation for poor education in the south is true.

 

[BEER]

Shall not be violated, shall not be infringed, same thing.

I guess the reputation for poor education in the south is true.

Goodness.

This is rough.

You included a separate article in an attempt to negate "shall not infringe".

I'm sorry we had a misunderstanding.

But now that's it cleared up, I will tell you plainly what the second means to me:

"Civilians will not prohibited from the ownership and carrying of firearms, because the right is necessary if the government starts fucking up"

90% of the time, I agree with you. I'm pretty much as far left as it gets for Sherdog.

Not on this one.

 

[7437]

Goodness.

This is rough.

You included a separate article in an attempt to negate "shall not infringe".

I'm sorry we had a misunderstanding.

But now that's it cleared up, I will tell you plainly what the second means to me:

"Civilians will not prohibited from the ownership and carrying of firearms, because the right is necessary if the government starts fucking up"

90% of the time, I agree with you. I'm pretty much as far left as it gets for Sherdog.

Not on this

The constitution specifies exactly 1 crime. Fighting the government. Treason.

The 2nd does say that people can have guns. Specifically, it says "arms". Everyone I know thinks that "arms" in general have to have restrictions, given that includes things like a nuclear weapon. So the question isnt if there can be regulations (notice it says well regulated, that implies regulation) the question is what's too much.

Quite a few people think any and all firearms should be allowed. I actually tend to think those people are right.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

Boogaloo is a term used to describe a major armed conflict between state actors and non-state actors, something resembling a civil war.

Virginia was a peaceful demonstration.....

Everything else I’ve said stands. Any realistic boogaloo is going to be a 4th generation asymmetrical conflict. Assasination, kidnap, bombings, arson, propaganda, infrastructure destruction, etc..

Optics matter, if every channel of mass communication is being used to label you a terrorist, than you’ll be a fucking terrorist. Propaganda is extremely effective, you will need sympathizers in those positions.

I agree deep red states will defy federal gun control laws. States don’t seem to have a problem flouting federal law, look at states that told the feds to fuck off regarding immigration laws in the past few years for example.

I agree with all of this.

Recent drug laws are another example of states defying federal laws. And an attempt has been made with abortion too. Personally I think it’s a good thing even when I disagree with the direction the states are going (like with immigration or abortion, I happen to agree with the federal laws). I like states having more autonomy over their own laws. It gives more options to citizens too, moving to another state is much easier than leaving the country.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I think the media is upset that a protest like this can happen peacefully whereas BLM protests inevitability turn into riots. Not a great look I suppose.

There's even pictures of the protesters picking up trash before leaving. Lol

 

[Teppodama]

Virginia house passing more firearms bills. No personal sales without background check and municipalities can ban carry in parks and public buildings regardless of carry permit.

Will be very interesting to see what happens in Virginia during the next election cycle. If Republicans gain control of the House and Governor's spot I hope they not only repel all everything Northam and gang are pushing through but also stick it in and break it off on all of them that may remain. Stomp all of their initiatives into the dirt.

 

[7437]

Virginia house passing more firearms bills. No personal sales without background check and municipalities can ban carry in parks and public buildings regardless of carry permit.

Will be very interesting to see what happens in Virginia during the next election cycle. If Republicans gain control of the House and Governor's spot I hope they not only repel all everything Northam and gang are pushing through but also stick it in and break it off on all of them that may remain. Stomp all of their initiatives into the dirt.

Isnt that the exact same thing they did anyway?

 

[Teppodama]

Isnt that the exact same thing they did anyway?

Don't know, not Virginian. Likely it would just be a continuation of hostilities between both parties from before this election. However I do not care. On the issue of the 2A I am very partisan and fairly single issue. I make no apologies about that and am not particularly inclined to agree to any compromises that further erode it.

 

[Happy Man]

Virginia house passing more firearms bills. No personal sales without background check and municipalities can ban carry in parks and public buildings regardless of carry permit.

Will be very interesting to see what happens in Virginia during the next election cycle. If Republicans gain control of the House and Governor's spot I hope they not only repel all everything Northam and gang are pushing through but also stick it in and break it off on all of them that may remain. Stomp all of their initiatives into the dirt.

cant the Supreme Court rule it unconstitutional?

 

[7437]

cant the Supreme Court rule it unconstitutional?

Of course.

 

[Teppodama]

cant the Supreme Court rule it unconstitutional?

Possibly but they've already proven fairly chicken shit when it comes to dealing with the 2A.

 

[SingerAuto]

As a Virginian and someone who usually votes left, Northam is dumb on this and is being used as a test case by prominent Dems to see how they can approach gun control laws in rural areas. If he would take the lead on another issue he has been in favor, marijuana decriminalization (which will probably pass this week), he would be receiving much more support from the public and far less backlash. The public as a whole has shifted on marijuana and most support full legalization, much less decriminalization. But because he is on his last term, he wants to push his agenda on gun control.

Some of his positions I agree with, such that a city or municipality can decide to ban firearms in parks and such, but others he has waded too far in the weeds for even more center-left Dems who support some common sense gun regulations but no full frontal assault on the second amendment.
There's no easy, simple answer on firearms, there simply isnt. There should be different requirements to own a .38 revolver and a m320 grenade launcher. But there isn't an easy, blanket answer to curbing the U.S.'s massive gun violence problem while protecting the rights of people who are responsible firearms owners.

 

[SingerAuto]

That's how the Dems get the guns. They tempt you with marijuana next thing you know you're too high to realize tyranny's got you by the balls.

Those laws will not make you safer. They are chipping away at the outer layer of the 2nd and soon they'll reach the core.

Gun free zones are prime targets. Don't create a society of scared sissies.

How do you enforce that lol? ​

You should have been an actor, you're clearly proficient in being dramatic.