"Virginia Democrats won an election. Gun owners are talking civil war"

By the people, you must mean nine SCOTUS members.

I'm more worried about activist LW judges who decide the 2A doesn't apply anymore.

 

The Columbine shooting was done with 10 round magazines.

Mine aren't for sale.

 

No, my posts suggest I see the reality of actual leftist actions such as what we have in VA right now.

You see pie in the sky while rejecting the reality in front of your face. Good luck with not obeying the firearm regulations you helped vote for in CA.

 

This is not dismissive of any of the mass shootings, or meant to diminish the anquish of their loved ones, but:

Columbine: 15 deaths, including both shooters.
Las Vegas 2017 deaths: 59 deaths, including the shooter.
Orlando night club: 50 deaths, including the shooter.

In fact, Columbine comes in at a distant #17 in the all time list.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mas...ed_States#Deadliest_mass_shootings_since_1949

If those two kids had been using 30-round mags, I'd bet money that the Columbine mass shooting would have been closer to 40, maybe more. Anything that saves an innocent life or two is worth trying, IMO.

 

Won’t be the first time free men rose up against tyranny—winning an election doesn’t entitled any politician, political party, or government to violate the rights of the individual, no matter how many votes they receive.

 

Do these gun people every come up with anything new? Always the same bumper sticker cliches

For the umpteenth time, no right, no right listed in the Bill of Rights is absolute, never has been, never will be, they all are legally regulated, guns can be Constitutionally regulated, there is no violation of individual rights

 

Guns are already regulated. VA is attempting outright prohibitions of certain types of commonly owned firearms. That is unconstitutional. Red flag laws are unconstitutional as they violate due process.

 

The tyrant speaketh. Must be hard being you.

Ayn Rand: "The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his. --http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html


And that is what is happening in Virginia. For shame, you blasted tyrants.

 

They need to realise that had they just kept living their rural county lives the same way with no enforcement likely no one notices or cares, seriously no one was going to go on your farm and be like hand them over. But instead you had to have a tantrum and now they put the spotlight on them.

 

Again, it is not unconstitutional, as the Court implied in the Holder Case it is up to the local level to determine what is allowed

 

Kinda like the rebel-rouser, Patrick Henry...or Duane Eddy, if you prefer.


Whatever the case,
I quote I poet I'm indifferent too,
but like this expressed attitude:

"We will not go gently into the night."--Dylan Thomas
Get Ready.

 

Not sure what “holder” case is. But heller v DC precludes a ban on any type of firearm in common usage. Most of the guns VA wants to ban are in common usage and are the most popular and widely owned firearms. This will go to the Supreme Court and will be overturned within 6 months of passing.

 

If even one shot is fired they should arrest everyone in that rally (who is not a counter protester) and charge them with rioting with a deadly weapon

 

Ayn Rand? For real?

"“If this country falls apart or the government collapses in bankruptcy, having a handgun in your pocket isn’t going to save your life. What you need in order to fight for a proper system of government are the right ideas.” - Ayn Rand

 

The chief justice will not touch another gun case with a ten foot pole. Too many deaths, and too political.

 

This is correct...but one of those right ideas is the right to self-defense, is it not?

 

Ayn Rand's mostly insane ideas are ingested by people who truly don't grasp our form of government.

 

Heller, you are correct, was in a hurry

"Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Some limitations "undoubtedly" are permissible, Scalia said, because limitations existed when the Constitution was written" (https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...amendment-limitations-it-will-have-be-decided)

Even in his majority opinion he confirmed that the "right" wasn't absolute

And I wouldn't say an assault weapons is "in conman usage and (is one of) the most popular and widely owned firearm"

 

"

I grasp today's government just fine, envy and gang warfare--statism based on altruism under the principle of "the greatest good for the greatest number". However, that certainly wasn't the founding principle, Individual Rights.

Ayn Rand: "If we discard morality and substitute for it the Collectivist doctrine of unlimited majority rule, if we accept the idea that a majority may do anything it pleases, and that anything done by a majority is right because it’s done by a majority (this being the only standard of right and wrong)—how are men to apply this in practice to their actual lives? Who is the majority? In relation to each particular man, all other men are potential members of that majority which may destroy him at its pleasure at any moment. Then each man and all men become enemies; each has to fear and suspect all; each must try to rob and murder first, before he is robbed and murdered."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/democracy.html

 

No, one doesn't need an assault weapon self defense, Attila and the Huns nor the Crips are invading anyone's house

 

our system sucks, we should switch over to westminster style government. Change the house to a parliament that elects the president and can remove them with a vote of no confidence and the senate to a chamber of intellectuals from the Legal, Medical, Financial, Education, Environmental, and Science communities all appointed by boards and for life. Then make the court system merit based. With each case judges take being graded by the board, and the top judge being the replacement for the supreme court or whatever court has a vacancy.

 

MS-13? BTW--I was robbed by members of Crips, could have used gun then.

 

And one ought not be judged a dangerous criminal just because one has an assault weapon, should one? Of course, the most dangerous assault weapon is a focused mind with a pencil.

As in


Or better still, the ideal:

 

Might as well, Mitch has made the Senate a parliamentary majority rule entity same as the House

 

Actually what the dems are doing with no evidence is a vote of no confidence.