Virginia Governor Declares states of emergency because of GUNS RIGHTS RALLY

[squatz1]

Due to the fact that Virginia Democrats have taken over both chambers of the states legislature, they've planned a LARGE amount of gun control bills that are going to be coming up the pipeline. It seems as if the Dems are unified in passing these, and the Democratic Governor Northram (yes, the guy who got caught with blackface, was told to resign and then didn't) has signaled that he's supporting these measures.

I'm going to expect that a good majority of you guys have heard / seen all the memes on the topic already, saying things like "GUN OWNERS WE'RE GOING TO VIRGINA" or that they're going to take the gun from their cold dead hands. Things along those lines. To summarize it, gun owners in Virgina (and outside of Virgina) are pretty pissed and they're holding a protest/rally to show their anger and try to convince lawmakers to change their potential votes.

The group that's hosting the event, the Virgina Citizens Defense League, has stated that the people participating in the rally are going to be armed though it is going to be a peaceful protest. Virginia Governor has countered in saying that they've received credible reports from LE saying that people are going to be violent and try to cause harm.

Who knows if he's being truthful or if he's just trying to shut down a group of people that he wants to stop. Guess we'll see in the coming days. (Monday is the date of the rally btw)

Source: https://www.npr.org/2020/01/15/796666321/virginia-governor-declares-state-of-emergency-ahead-of-pro-gun-rally (didn't quote or anything, just want people to be able to read about it here, can always look this up and find a different source if ya think NPR isn't good enough)

[1715392209]

1715392209

[1715392209]

1715392209

[1715392209]

1715392209

[1715392209]

1715392209

[1715392209]

1715392209

[franky1]

owning a single shot gun for self defense is one thing
but owning a fully autimatic rifle that can fire 30 shots in a couple seconds is another

there are many gun owners that will take the gun control laws as a 'militia attack' against people and feel its their constitutional right to fight and defend their rights using force.
and some feel if police stop them protesting or telling them to disburse as the same 'militia attack'

so yea i do see some violence occuring because there are some nutters in the gun owning community
this does not mean its going to be some big civil war citizen vs government army of thousands of guns being shot on both sides. but it only takes a couple nutters to cause chaos.

things can escalate fast.
at most when there is no actual war/threat to immediate life. a gun should not be even in someones hand.
and yes that includes cops. have them holstered and no where near having their finger on the trigger finger. that goes for both sides.

i can see it escalating fast here some gun owners will think its perfectly safe for them to shoot into the air 'coz no one gets hurt' and some people to point weapons at police(even without gun loaded) as some innocent protest thinking 'coz no one gets hurt'

the reality is though when a innocent shot is heard. panic occurs. when a gun is pointed at you, loaded or not. panic occurs
andits this panic.. and the hurd mentality of people reacting to it than can cause incidents

EG if someone points a gun at you and you dont know if its loaded. you have to automatically treat it as a threat to life. meaning yo can fire back. so yea an officer might think they are getting threatened and then shot first to defend themselves. then another person see's it as a civil attack and fires back. then all of a sudden .. chaos

...
the best way for gun owners to truely peacefully protest and show they actually have the smarts to actually own a gun. is to show they dont need to wave it around in public.
.. then again. so should the police too

[squatz1]

owning a single shot gun for self defense is one thing
but owning a fully autimatic rifle that can fire 30 shots in a couple seconds is another

there are many gun owners that will take the gun control laws as a 'militia attack' against people and feel its their constitutional right to fight and defend their rights using force.
and some feel if police stop them protesting or telling them to disburse as the same 'militia attack'

so yea i do see some violence occuring because there are some nutters in the gun owning community
this does not mean its going to be some big civil war citizen vs government army of thousands of guns being shot on both sides. but it only takes a couple nutters to cause chaos.

things can escalate fast.
at most when there is no actual war/threat to immediate life. a gun should not be even in someones hand.
and yes that includes cops. have them holstered and no where near having their finger on the trigger finger. that goes for both sides.

i can see it escalating fast here some gun owners will think its perfectly safe for them to shoot into the air 'coz no one gets hurt' and some people to point weapons at police(even without gun loaded) as some innocent protest thinking 'coz no one gets hurt'

the reality is though when a innocent shot is heard. panic occurs. when a gun is pointed at you, loaded or not. panic occurs
andits this panic.. and the hurd mentality of people reacting to it than can cause incidents

EG if someone points a gun at you and you dont know if its loaded. you have to automatically treat it as a threat to life. meaning yo can fire back. so yea an officer might think they are getting threatened and then shot first to defend themselves. then another person see's it as a civil attack and fires back. then all of a sudden .. chaos

...
the best way for gun owners to truely peacefully protest and show they actually have the smarts to actually own a gun. is to show they dont need to wave it around in public.
.. then again. so should the police too

I mean the problem here is that gun owners beleive (and I'm not going to comment on if its right or wrong, because that's most likely not something anyone can prove) is that gun control laws are a slipperly slope. Yes, banning certain rifles may be worth it but if you do that are handguns going to be next? then shotguns? then so on and so forth.

Mental illness checks are fine, but who's going to define what is and what isn't a mental illness to be able to deny me my constitutional right.

Red flag laws sound good on paper, but taking guns away from law following Americans because of a fake / misunderstood piece of info and a crazy judge sounds a bit wrong to me.

I don't think anything is going to go wrong at this event. When massive gun control laws are changed though, that's when we'll see some madness.

[BADecker]

If people don't like what their representatives are doing, they have the right to recall them through impeachment or referendum or other means listed in their State Constitution and Amendments. And this even if their representatives are not doing something illegal.

If government people are acting illegally by limiting gun rights when the 2nd Amendment says that gun rights shall not be infringed, it is the duty of the people to sue them personally, as men and women. Such suits should come both from individuals and class action.

The governor of Virginia is the the chief magistrate of the State. If he won't allow lawsuits against State representatives to go through, the people need to file in United States District Court if they file a class action suit, and Federal District Court if they file individually.

[TECSHARE]

Virginia is going to be the dry run for nation wide gun control. The government has no respect for any of our rights. The ONLY thing preserving ANY of our freedoms is that the US citizenry is armed to the teeth. "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Upon review of more information here: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/northam-declares-state-emergency-virginia-because-armed-militia-groups-plan-storm-capitol

It is clear this "state of emergency" is an unconstitutional and tyrannical act aimed directly at preventing law abiding gun owners from protesting and exercising their 2nd amendment rights. This is just an back door way to shut down the protest by making it "illegal" for the protestors to show up with firearms, the entire purpose of the demonstration. This dipshit is playing with fire. Much like the rest of the left L.A.R.P.ing revolution, eventually if they pretend long enough they are going to get a real one, and they won't end up on top.



P.S. Stop legitimizing self moderated threads in Politics and Society. Only weak minded simpletons need to curate political discussion, and as far as I can tell you don't even use it anyway. All you are doing is giving legitimacy to the toolbags who use it for censorship.

[squatz1]

Virginia is going to be the dry run for nation wide gun control. The government has no respect for any of our rights. The ONLY thing preserving ANY of our freedoms is that the US citizenry is armed to the teeth. "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Upon review of more information here: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/northam-declares-state-emergency-virginia-because-armed-militia-groups-plan-storm-capitol

It is clear this "state of emergency" is an unconstitutional and tyrannical act aimed directly at preventing law abiding gun owners from protesting and exercising their 2nd amendment rights. This is just an back door way to shut down the protest by making it "illegal" for the protestors to show up with firearms, the entire purpose of the demonstration. This dipshit is playing with fire. Much like the rest of the left L.A.R.P.ing revolution, eventually if they pretend long enough they are going to get a real one, and they won't end up on top.



P.S. Stop legitimizing self moderated threads in Politics and Society. Only weak minded simpletons need to curate political discussion, and as far as I can tell you don't even use it anyway. All you are doing is giving legitimacy to the toolbags who use it for censorship.

This is what I had been thinking as well. In my mind (and probably most people who are anti gun control) Dems are trying to see what the response of the gun owners community is if they pass far reaching gun control laws. If it had gone without any issue, then this would happen on a national scale, but because people in Virgina (and others that are coming into VA) are fighting back, it means that they know they can't just do this overnight and everyone will just ignore it.

I don't think there's a problem with self mod threads. The purpose of them is to keep what you determine as 'bad' out. I'm not the type of person to remove much of anything, just mostly low effort spam. Not a reason to 'kill it for all of us' because some can't handle the power.

[TECSHARE]

Virginia is going to be the dry run for nation wide gun control. The government has no respect for any of our rights. The ONLY thing preserving ANY of our freedoms is that the US citizenry is armed to the teeth. "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Upon review of more information here: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/northam-declares-state-emergency-virginia-because-armed-militia-groups-plan-storm-capitol

It is clear this "state of emergency" is an unconstitutional and tyrannical act aimed directly at preventing law abiding gun owners from protesting and exercising their 2nd amendment rights. This is just an back door way to shut down the protest by making it "illegal" for the protestors to show up with firearms, the entire purpose of the demonstration. This dipshit is playing with fire. Much like the rest of the left L.A.R.P.ing revolution, eventually if they pretend long enough they are going to get a real one, and they won't end up on top.



P.S. Stop legitimizing self moderated threads in Politics and Society. Only weak minded simpletons need to curate political discussion, and as far as I can tell you don't even use it anyway. All you are doing is giving legitimacy to the toolbags who use it for censorship.

This is what I had been thinking as well. In my mind (and probably most people who are anti gun control) Dems are trying to see what the response of the gun owners community is if they pass far reaching gun control laws. If it had gone without any issue, then this would happen on a national scale, but because people in Virgina (and others that are coming into VA) are fighting back, it means that they know they can't just do this overnight and everyone will just ignore it.

I don't think there's a problem with self mod threads. The purpose of them is to keep what you determine as 'bad' out. I'm not the type of person to remove much of anything, just mostly low effort spam. Not a reason to 'kill it for all of us' because some can't handle the power.

This is operating under the assumption that they don't want civil war. In that case they very much would move forward with this plan.

No one said "kill it", just stop using it so it is clear the only people who do are censorious douchebags who can't handle a critical debate. I find the very idea of a self moderated thread in this section repugnant. The small advantage of being able ot filter out a small amount of low effort posts the moderators won't remove by forum rules is totally overshadowed by its potential for abuse to censor.

[audaciousbeing]

Its high time people who own guns start listening to reasons and not just be blinded by sentiments that have pervaded the entire history of the United States. If guns are really for protections, except you are going to war or you fell behind enemy lines, I don't see the reason why someone would want to have extremely automatic weapons in his house when you only need one shot to fatally injure an intruder should that even happen. Whereas, on the other hand, we have seen series of cases of mass shooters who have hide under the law to acquire arsenal of weapons just to unleash maximum casualties on innocent civilians.

The action of the governor is justified if he is certain that those activities would lead to disturbance of peace of people in his state.

[TECSHARE]

Its high time people who own guns start listening to reasons and not just be blinded by sentiments that have pervaded the entire history of the United States. If guns are really for protections, except you are going to war or you fell behind enemy lines, I don't see the reason why someone would want to have extremely automatic weapons in his house when you only need one shot to fatally injure an intruder should that even happen. Whereas, on the other hand, we have seen series of cases of mass shooters who have hide under the law to acquire arsenal of weapons just to unleash maximum casualties on innocent civilians.

The action of the governor is justified if he is certain that those activities would lead to disturbance of peace of people in his state.

What the fuck is an "extremely automatic weapon"? From your comments I can tell you don't know a God damned thing about firearms, why the 2nd amendment to The US Constitution exists, or the US in general. Stick to Canada or wherever the fuck you are from and leave us to our own domestic policies. There are plenty of other applicable threads for you to signature spam on.

[squatz1]

Virginia is going to be the dry run for nation wide gun control. The government has no respect for any of our rights. The ONLY thing preserving ANY of our freedoms is that the US citizenry is armed to the teeth. "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Upon review of more information here: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/northam-declares-state-emergency-virginia-because-armed-militia-groups-plan-storm-capitol

It is clear this "state of emergency" is an unconstitutional and tyrannical act aimed directly at preventing law abiding gun owners from protesting and exercising their 2nd amendment rights. This is just an back door way to shut down the protest by making it "illegal" for the protestors to show up with firearms, the entire purpose of the demonstration. This dipshit is playing with fire. Much like the rest of the left L.A.R.P.ing revolution, eventually if they pretend long enough they are going to get a real one, and they won't end up on top.



P.S. Stop legitimizing self moderated threads in Politics and Society. Only weak minded simpletons need to curate political discussion, and as far as I can tell you don't even use it anyway. All you are doing is giving legitimacy to the toolbags who use it for censorship.

This is what I had been thinking as well. In my mind (and probably most people who are anti gun control) Dems are trying to see what the response of the gun owners community is if they pass far reaching gun control laws. If it had gone without any issue, then this would happen on a national scale, but because people in Virgina (and others that are coming into VA) are fighting back, it means that they know they can't just do this overnight and everyone will just ignore it.

I don't think there's a problem with self mod threads. The purpose of them is to keep what you determine as 'bad' out. I'm not the type of person to remove much of anything, just mostly low effort spam. Not a reason to 'kill it for all of us' because some can't handle the power.

This is operating under the assumption that they don't want civil war. In that case they very much would move forward with this plan.

No one said "kill it", just stop using it so it is clear the only people who do are censorious douchebags who can't handle a critical debate. I find the very idea of a self moderated thread in this section repugnant. The small advantage of being able ot filter out a small amount of low effort posts the moderators won't remove by forum rules is totally overshadowed by its potential for abuse to censor.

Still don't see what the issue is for ME using it, if I'm someone who uses it for the (at least in my view) the intended purpose, which is to keep low effort BS out of my thread.

If people want to censor with it then so be it, just avoid those threads. While it may suck and be stupid, that is how it goes.

[TECSHARE]

Still don't see what the issue is for ME using it, if I'm someone who uses it for the (at least in my view) the intended purpose, which is to keep low effort BS out of my thread.

If people want to censor with it then so be it, just avoid those threads. While it may suck and be stupid, that is how it goes.

Your use of it normalizes and legitimizes it. I don't think it should be common or acceptable for anyone to use here. "Just avoid those threads" is not a viable solution. That would make sense if say some one was offended by content, not if they are being prevented form participating in discussion. Avoiding participating in a discussion you are being prevented from participating in is not a solution.

[TheCoinGrabber]

I don't live in the US but since this is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, isn't the governor doing something illegal? Usually with declarations of "state of emergency" comes emergency powers that might allow enforcers to break up rallies, right? From what I see these rallyists aren't doing anything illegal.

Mental illness checks are fine, but who's going to define what is and what isn't a mental illness to be able to deny me my constitutional right.

The thing is they define what an illness is based on whatever they like. When people tell you so-and-so makes someone "unfit" just point out that homosexuals used to be sent to insane asylums.

[squatz1]

Still don't see what the issue is for ME using it, if I'm someone who uses it for the (at least in my view) the intended purpose, which is to keep low effort BS out of my thread.

If people want to censor with it then so be it, just avoid those threads. While it may suck and be stupid, that is how it goes.

Your use of it normalizes and legitimizes it. I don't think it should be common or acceptable for anyone to use here. "Just avoid those threads" is not a viable solution. That would make sense if say some one was offended by content, not if they are being prevented form participating in discussion. Avoiding participating in a discussion you are being prevented from participating in is not a solution.

The only solution to your problem would be to talk to Theymos about getting that removed in this section. I'm going to keep using it. Still don't understand the resistance to it to be honest.

I don't live in the US but since this is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, isn't the governor doing something illegal? Usually with declarations of "state of emergency" comes emergency powers that might allow enforcers to break up rallies, right? From what I see these rallyists aren't doing anything illegal.

Mental illness checks are fine, but who's going to define what is and what isn't a mental illness to be able to deny me my constitutional right.

The thing is they define what an illness is based on whatever they like. When people tell you so-and-so makes someone "unfit" just point out that homosexuals used to be sent to insane asylums.

State of emergenices (declared by the Governor) most likely allow him to ban firearms from state grounds.
But in regards to gun controls, the legislature can pass whatever they want and then lawsuits would most likely happen to see if the law is constitutional or not. Though the SC leans towards certain parts of gun control being legal.

[TECSHARE]

Your use of it normalizes and legitimizes it. I don't think it should be common or acceptable for anyone to use here. "Just avoid those threads" is not a viable solution. That would make sense if say some one was offended by content, not if they are being prevented form participating in discussion. Avoiding participating in a discussion you are being prevented from participating in is not a solution.

The only solution to your problem would be to talk to Theymos about getting that removed in this section. I'm going to keep using it. Still don't understand the resistance to it to be honest.

Or I can just continue to mock anyone who uses it for joining the league of chumps who insist on using it allowing censorship to thrive in one of the very few places left on the internet where free speech is still allowed. Why would anyone be bothered by that? It is only recently this section stopped endlessly mocking anyone who dared use the feature here. Like I said, all you are doing is serving to normalize that totalitarian behavior. To add insult to injury you don't even use it, it is just there to comfort the control freak inside of you as you unwittingly run cover for those with more totalitarian tendencies.

[iluvbitcoins]

owning a single shot gun for self defense is one thing
but owning a fully autimatic rifle that can fire 30 shots in a couple seconds is another

Why?
2A exists for defense against the goverment, not against robbery.

[BADecker]

owning a single shot gun for self defense is one thing
but owning a fully autimatic rifle that can fire 30 shots in a couple seconds is another

Why?
2A exists for defense against the goverment, not against robbery.

'Cause all gun owners leave their guns lie around for their kids. And the 1-y-o baby just might place his finger on the trigger of the automatic rifle and shoot up the neighborhood in a single burst.

Seriously, the major reason for the militia is so the people can protect themselves from the police and the military.

[franky1]

If government people are acting illegally by limiting gun rights when the 2nd Amendment says that gun rights shall not be infringed, it is the duty of the people to sue them personally, as men and women. Such suits should come both from individuals and class action.

the word GUN. or fully automatic rifle are not in the 2nd amendment
the second amendment does not have the word sue or lawsuit in it either

people only have the right to

[Spendulus]

owning a single shot gun for self defense is one thing
but owning a fully autimatic rifle that can fire 30 shots in a couple seconds is another
...

A single shot firearm is totally inadequate for self defense. However, it is adequate for OFFENSE. For example, to rob a storekeeper or a bank only takes a single shot firearm.

A two-shot 12 gang shotgun, used by a person with training, is an effective defense weapon.

Fully automatic weapons are not commonly owned by individuals. For self defense the primary question is what weapon could be grabbed when it was needed. The larger, heavier rifles are less desirable for that. AR15 platform are excellent lightweight, compact self defense rifles.

[iluvbitcoins]

If government people are acting illegally by limiting gun rights when the 2nd Amendment says that gun rights shall not be infringed, it is the duty of the people to sue them personally, as men and women. Such suits should come both from individuals and class action.

the word GUN. or fully automatic rifle are not in the 2nd amendment
the second amendment does not have the word sue or lawsuit in it either

people only have the right to

These are better  

https://www.mtrushmoretshirts.com/uploads/6/5/4/8/65480647/s336972411168633553_p102_i4_w2560.jpeg

[BADecker]

If government people are acting illegally by limiting gun rights when the 2nd Amendment says that gun rights shall not be infringed, it is the duty of the people to sue them personally, as men and women. Such suits should come both from individuals and class action.

the word GUN. or fully automatic rifle are not in the 2nd amendment
the second amendment does not have the word sue or lawsuit in it either

people only have the right to

These are better  

https://www.mtrushmoretshirts.com/uploads/6/5/4/8/65480647/s336972411168633553_p102_i4_w2560.jpeg

Since the 2nd Amendment was written over 200 years ago, and since none of the writers of it are alive today, how do we know what it really meant?

We need to go to the other writings of the 2nd Amendment signers to see what they really thought. When you read their writings, it is easy to see that they wanted people to be armed with the most up-to-date weapons around. Both, the people who were in favor of a strong central government, and those who were in favor of a weaker federal government, were in favor of top armament for the average people of all the States.

Google and read the Federalist Papers, and the Anti-Federalist Papers.