Virginians.. ready to be felons?

[Jimmy Dean]

This is socialism in progress.
Do what we know is best for you, or go to jail, or we will at least financially ruin you

I am rather anti-socialist, but this is not socialism. Socialism is primarily an economic establishment. This is totalitarianism, plain and simple.

Sponsored

 

[Wolvee]

And lets not forget the senate.. SB16..

SUMMARY AS INTRODUCED:
Prohibiting sale, transport, etc., of assault firearms and certain firearm magazines; penalties. Expands the definition of "assault firearm" and prohibits any person from importing, selling, transferring, manufacturing, purchasing, possessing, or transporting an assault firearm. A violation is a Class 6 felony. The bill prohibits a dealer from selling, renting, trading, or transferring from his inventory an assault firearm to any person. The bill also prohibits a person from carrying a shotgun with a magazine that will hold more than seven rounds of the longest ammunition for which it is chambered in a public place; under existing law, this prohibition applies only in certain localities. The bill makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to import, sell, barter, or transfer any firearm magazine designed to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.




And there many more..


http://lis.virginia.gov/201/lst/LS027763.HTM

 

[galaxy]

Couple quick comments from me and I'm out (mainly because I'm not very good at debating). Either way, this topic sucks. As someone that lives in IL, I live in fear of this scenario every day and honestly can't believe it's occurring in VA.

A ban on assault weapons, to include suppressors and bump stocks; - Which of these do you need for hunting or home protection? Oh, none.

My biggest pet peeve in ANY gun debate is the word "need". Just for the sake of argument, I'll set my personal beliefs and opinions aside and agree with you (I don't, but I'll continue as if I do). I agree, I have no "need" for an AR. Why do I need one? Why do I need a "need reason". I don't "need" a lot of things in my life that I own, but I work hard for my money, this is my hobby, and this is what I enjoy spending my money on. I enjoy the sport shooting of an AR. When i look at, work on it, tinker with it, it's the exact same mechanical euphoric effect as laying under my Mustang in the garage changing brakes or installing a carbon driveshaft. it's the exact. same. thing. Democrats and liberals alike need (and this time it is a legitimate need) to get off this platform that anyone that owns an AR or similar are gun lovin, killin, maniacs with no other agenda but mass shootings. It's really absurd.

I'm wondering who is going to persuade the National Guard to confiscate their own personal firearms. Unless they're very different from any other Guard guys I've ever known, that won't go over well at all.

This is my hang up. I spent 25 years flying with my guard counterparts and i don't know any guardsman (nor military member, nor cop for that matter), that would support and follow a law or order that required them to go door to door to confiscate guns. Just not gonna happen. I stand to be wrong, but...And like you said, they have as many guns as the rest of us. And being guardsman, they are by definition "citizen" soldiers. Thus subject to the same laws. They'd have to give theirs up before they go to work taking anyone elses.

And I'll say this about the Democrats, and I hope I'm wrong. I think they think the laws will be followed, or citizens will willfully comply. i also think they think they'll send in the guard and cops if citizens don't, and that'll run just fine also.. And then it's over and they win either way. IMO, this is rock bottom. This will be a bad day in this state (or country) and it will not play out like people think. What would I do?? IDK...that's one of those questions that will get answered once you get punched in the throat. But I'll tell ya this much (cause I'm from there), it's funny to me this is actually happening in this part of the country cause there's some people in VA, WVA, and the hills of NC and TN that are NOT going to be giving up jack shit. I'm curious how many cops will continue on this quest after they get a gun shoved in their face when they open the wrong door? It's certainly scary, no matter how you slice it and no matter what side you're on.

 

[aleccolin]

Constitution of Virginia, Article 1 Section 13, in it's entirety:

Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and
safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that
standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should
be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Virginia is extraordinarily pro-gun. This is the wrong state to fuck with.

All these anti-gun idiots think people aren't prepared to willfully disobey the unconstitutional laws they pass, that it's just hyperbole, rhetoric.

It isn't.

 

[Shifting_Gears]

This is nothing less than alarming.

I am 100,000% for responsible gun ownership, education and prevention of tragic events. However, having parties that find no value in self protection nor understand firearms propose these laws is like having an arsonist on fire watch in the middle of a forest in drought.

We do have a gun problem as a nation, on both sides... honestly. Some people are disgustingly anti firearm and some are equally pro firearm to the point the arguments or justifications aren’t even rational.

Banning and confiscation weapons isn’t the answer. As everyone knows, that removes the guns from honest people. Do you think criminals will give a flying fuck it’s a felony if they don’t turn in their guns, which are likely untraceable to them due to how they’re acquired in the first place? Nope. No more than they care about distributing drugs, robbing you, committing murder, fraud, etc.

 

[Caballus]

Constitution of Virginia, Article 1 Section 13 does not help the gun ownership case because it’s outdated. The same is true of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution when it comes to relying on it to support the argument.


Granted, current Supreme Court rulings support individual ownership, but the more the Second Amendment (or 1-13) is invoked as justification, the more at risk ownership becomes. Why?


1. It refers to “Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power,” not to private citizens. The Supreme Court has flip flopped on this in the past.


2. The description “…a well regulated militaria composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” is a problematic statement.


- It can be argued that in time of emergency, all armed citizens can enter the militia—reasonable argument…kinda.


- However, the argument falls apart after this because, with the exception of a concealed carry permit, gun ownership is not based on a requirement to be “trained to arms.” So, does the training occur after the fact? If so, then where do personal weapons come into play?—see number 5 below.


3. The problem continues with the next portion: “that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty.”


- Prior to the Second World War we maintained a relatively small force and generated capability when needed. The Spanish American War (and War in the Philippines in particular) was fought largely by federalized militias. The Cold War changed that, the fiasco of TF Smith in Korea helping the case.


- Now, the standing armies that serve the state (activated National Guard) and federal government (U.S. Armed Forces) are much larger than ever anticipated and that will not be significantly reduced. Even the post-Cold War hollowing was relatively insignificant in this context.


- So, the point is the idea of avoiding standing armies during peacetime is obsolete, and therefore not a useful basis for the argument.


4. “…that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” Goes back to the well regulated phrase and specifies who should regulate—i.e., the government is in charge.


5. Although the Federal government produced weapons, at the time the Constitution was framed it was reasonable to assume that many individual citizens would need to use personal weapons when serving in the militia on behalf of the state. That is no longer true of any force in the U.S. In fact, even if you have a weapon that fits the exact specifications of a government issued one, taking that to combat requires tremendous red tape.


6. The idea that an armed population deters would be aggressors from attacking the U.S. is valid, but has nothing to do with the Constitution—state or federal. Nor is it calculated in U.S. war plans. This would be a valid argument if the U.S. required all citizens to be trained and serve in an inactive reserve status for an extended period—like the Nordic States, Baltic States, Switzerland and several others. However, there is no way that our citizens could immediately form units and start executing organized operations on short notice. We would be fielding an undisciplined armed mob.


Bottom line:

1. If the argument is not refreshed, ownership rights will continue to erode.

2. If we want to base ownership on the concept of Total Defense, then we need to institute a system similar to the ones cited in 6 above.

 

[Interceptor]

OK now the Europeans are telling the colonists what's what.
Our Bill of Rights are not outdated
Our constitution is not outdated
We had a revolution to decide this.

 

[slag1911]

A ban on assault weapons, to include suppressors and bump stocks; - Which of these do you need for hunting or home protection? Oh, none.

Nobody needs a gasoline powered V8 muscle car to drive 65 on the Highway..... see how that works?

Not to mention the 2nd amendment is a GOD GIVEN RIGHT... driving is a privilege licensed by the government.

 

[Interceptor]

You might be stretching the God giving right thing. I checked with my God and didn't see in his book. Maybe your Gods different.
No offense intended.

 

[Caballus]

OK now the Europeans are telling the colonists what's what.
Our Bill of Rights are not outdated
Our constitution is not outdated
We had a revolution to decide this.

What European are you referring to Interceptor?

 

[Interceptor]

What European are you referring to Interceptor?

Your location says Europe, so I assumed .. .. My bad?

 

[Caballus]

Your location says Europe, so I assumed .. .. My bad?

Point above is related to the basis of the argument not whether or not gun ownership should be regulated (further). The Second Amendment as a basis (or 1-13 for Virginia) does not support the argument when viewed objectively and therefore puts the entire argument at risk.

 

[Caballus]

And yes, very bad assumption, but it shouldn't matter. The point is regarding the argument, not the origin of the person who points it out.

 

[Weather Man]

You might be stretching the God giving right thing. I checked with my God and didn't see in his book. Maybe your Gods different.
No offense intended.

The Founders of this nation understood that there exists individual inalienable rights and our American government was formed with the sole purpose of safeguarding those inalienable rights.

Most countries do not take the view that you have the "right" to defend yourself. Indeed, if you do defend yourself, YOU may be the person who ends up going to jail.

 

[slag1911]

You might be stretching the God giving right thing. I checked with my God and didn't see in his book. Maybe your Gods different.
No offense intended.

The notion of God-given rights is a bedrock of the American creed, written into the Declaration of Independence. Its preamble says, of course, that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

Sponsored