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

Even the Clinton DOJ said the AWB had no impact on crime.

 

How about we have the same restrictions and liability for journalists who misuse their rights, as CNN did with the Nick Sandmann scandal?

 

You CONTINUE to avoid the points put to you:
- If no one will confiscate existing 'assault weapons' the ban on possession cannot have any effect.
- If the ban on possession of 'assault weapons' will not be enforced, it cannot have been "necessary " to ban them
- If the ban on possession will do nothing to take 'assault weapons' off the streets, until -after- someone uses one, it will do nothing more to reduce availability of existing guns, and thus, nothing to reduce their use in mass shootings than the laws currently in place.

Thus, the ban is both unnecessary and ineffective.

As the' ban', absent confiscation, will do nothing more than current laws to remove 'assault weapons' from the streets, the 'ban' will have no effect on access.

Thus, the ban is both unnecessary and ineffective.

Why do you support unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding?

 

I would not give up my gun if Bernie supporters are allowed to keep their guns, they want to send Trump supporters to the Gulags now and re-educate us, that's a game changer.

 

They want to take the guns because they know if they try to do the things they want to do, we'll shoot them.

 

Trump won National Election.... DEMOCRATS started an actual Civil war and coup d'état

 

First of all, it's the Commonwealth of Virginia, not the State, and the answer to your question is Yes and No.

The only officials who were elected by the entire Commonwealth are the aforementioned Governor Ralph "Coonman" Northam, accused-rapist Lt. Governor Justin "F*** that B****" Fairfax, and AG Mark Herring, who used to do contemporary versions of Jim Crow era minstrel shows at frat parties. Note that these three paragons of "progressive" virtue were elected back in 2017 and didn't run on a gun control platform.

On the other hand, the Democrats who did run largely on a gun control platform in the 2019 elections were running for local seats and were elected by the voters in their individual districts, not everyone in the Commonwealth. The same thing goes for the local officials who supported the 2nd Amendment sanctuary measures across Virginia - they were elected by the same voters in the same individual districts. In our county, state and local elections are held at the same time, so I presume that's the case across the entire Commonwealth.

While Democrats claim they were given a mandate to ram their gun control measures down everyone's throats, voters are saying something completely different. As of January 1, 2020, the vast majority of counties (87 out of 95) in Virginia are 2nd Amendment sanctuaries along with 11 cities and 18 towns. The only areas that have opposed the 2A sanctuary measures are deep blue Democrat strongholds, and they are few and far between.

Obviously, Dems and the media are lying about their "mandate", which tells us that there is more to their newly won majorities in the General Assembly than their gun control platform. The 2019 election was not a single-issue election revolving entirely around gun control, and there are other factors that contributed to the Democrats' victory, including a moribund Virginia GOP. Given that this issue is bringing a lot of people off of the sidelines we could see another wild swing in the General Assembly in 2021 and perhaps 2023. Some people are also talking about how this might change the political dynamics outside Virginia during this year's national elections but that remains to be seen.

 

This could happen in a blink of an eye if the guns get taken away.

 

Wouldn't be the first time they started a Civil War.

 

Tell us more about equating accidents with intentional homicide.

Which vehicle safety features prevent it from jumping a curb and intentionally committing homicide.

 

Go ahead and give us the examples Scalia used in his ruling, that you're trying to use to obfuscate your argument.

 

And... he's out of talking points.
They -always- run out.

 

Actually, we already have some solid gun control measures on the books, such as instant background checks, and the Democrats' actions will enable them to avoid addressing the underlying problems that are producing the symptom of gun violence in our communities. The fact is, Democrats don't want to address those underlying problems and they don't want anyone else to address them either, so Virginia Dems will conduct their gun control dog and pony show and gun violence in Virginia will continue unabated.

 

Quite the contrary, just returned, and to invalidate your statement;


"Antonin Scalia on Gun Control"
"The opinion also held that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited. Justice Scalia went out of his way to declare longstanding laws that prohibit possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill; that forbid guns in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings; that impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms; and that restrict the right to carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose, are still valid and enforceable."

https://www.ontheissues.org/Court/Antonin_Scalia_Gun_Control.htm

 

No problem:

"Antonin Scalia on Gun Control"
"The opinion also held that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited. Justice Scalia went out of his way to declare longstanding laws that prohibit possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill; that forbid guns in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings; that impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms; and that restrict the right to carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose, are still valid and enforceable."

https://www.ontheissues.org/Court/Antonin_Scalia_Gun_Control.htm

 

So felons, the mentally ill, government buildings and an example that includes zero restrictions on carrying any weapons anywhere for any possible reason you'd like is your litmus test.

Clearly that doesn't mean what you want it to.

 

The SCOTUS also heal 'assault weapons' are commonly used weapons.

 

Ah - the "Scalia " talking point.
Sadly for you. nothing here invalidates --anything-- I said.

The VA 'assault weapons' ban had been demonstrated to be both unnecessary and ineffective.
Why do you support unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding?

 

I don't have a rifle. I keep a Baby Eagle 9 mil in my panty drawer. Wanna see?

 

The lingerie or the pistol?

 

I repeat, who is taking anyone's guns?

And now I'm asking, what use is there for a 30 round mag? Is there a recreational need for 30 rounds? Do hunters ever miss so many times that they need 30 rounds?

Why worry about confiscation? No one is doing that, I've heard nothing about any state grabbing guns from it's citizens. I've heard that for guns that may become illegal, buyback/tax break incentives will be used and owners of outlawed guns will have an option to get paid or just keep what they have, but no new guns of that specific type will be sold.

You're complaining about something that is not happening and probably never will. UNCLENCH! The boogeyman is not hiding in your closet, and the government is not coming for your guns.

 

Whatever smokes your shorts.

 

if the VA ban on possession of 'assault weapons' is not enforced with confiscation, it cannot have any effect on the availability of existing guns, and by extension, the possibility of mass shootings.
If it won't be enforced, and thus, ineffective, how can it be necessary to ban possession said weapons?

 

I was just joking. One could have read your question either way.

 

Here's another thing. I recently read that the gun bill is going to include $250K to incarcerate the people who refuse to comply with the legislation.

Now, why is that?