RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech

RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 8:30:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Stupid Question, from a gun owner, and who is licensed to carry a concealed weapon: Does it matter to anyone that the open carry law in Virginia only allows the open carry of rifles and shotguns while going to and from a dealer, range or from a place where hunting is being done? Open carry of pistols is one thing, but what the idiots on both sides were toting around violated the law, unless you are trying to say that every one of them on both sides were going to a gunsmith, just bought the damn things, going to or coming from a shooting range or had just gone hunting and decided at the spur of the moment to take part in a demonstration that, is in essence, stupid on both sides? I do have a solution to this issue. The federal government can allow gun owning members of both sides of the issue to use one of the live fire training areas used by the military, we bus em all in and let them blast each other to hell and gone. Then we leave the dead and wounded out for the buzzards, and whatever else wants to have a free meal. Only if those deaths aren't counted in the gun death numbers.

jlf1961 -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 8:35:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Stupid Question, from a gun owner, and who is licensed to carry a concealed weapon: Does it matter to anyone that the open carry law in Virginia only allows the open carry of rifles and shotguns while going to and from a dealer, range or from a place where hunting is being done? Open carry of pistols is one thing, but what the idiots on both sides were toting around violated the law, unless you are trying to say that every one of them on both sides were going to a gunsmith, just bought the damn things, going to or coming from a shooting range or had just gone hunting and decided at the spur of the moment to take part in a demonstration that, is in essence, stupid on both sides? I do have a solution to this issue. The federal government can allow gun owning members of both sides of the issue to use one of the live fire training areas used by the military, we bus em all in and let them blast each other to hell and gone. Then we leave the dead and wounded out for the buzzards, and whatever else wants to have a free meal. Only if those deaths aren't counted in the gun death numbers. Well, unfortunately, there is no classification for "death due to being a fucking extremist idiot." You know, kind of like there is no way to put on a military report "individual was killed due to extreme stupidity and being a fucking moron."

bounty44 -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 8:42:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Does it matter to anyone that the open carry law in Virginia only allows the open carry of rifles and shotguns while going to and from a dealer, range or from a place where hunting is being done? just posted this on the other thread where you said the same thing; this may not be comprehensive, but what little is here does not support your contention quote: Open carry is generally allowed without a permit for people 18 years of age and older. The following cities and counties have exceptions that disallow the open carry of "assault weapons" (any firearm that is equipped with a magazine that will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or is designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock) or shotguns equipped with a magazine that holds more than 7 rounds: the Cities of Alexandria, Chesapeake, Fairfax, Falls Church, Newport News, Norfolk, Richmond, and Virginia Beach and in the Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Henrico, Loudoun, and Prince William. These restrictions do not apply to valid concealed carry permit holders. Stated differently, you may open carry an assault weapon/shotgun with more than 7 rounds with a permit in the aforementioned locations, but do not need a permit to do so in any other locality in Virginia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Virginia

BoscoX -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 8:48:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Does it matter to anyone that the open carry law in Virginia only allows the open carry of rifles and shotguns while going to and from a dealer, range or from a place where hunting is being done? just posted this on the other thread where you said the same thing; this may not be comprehensive, but what little is here does not support your contention quote: Open carry is generally allowed without a permit for people 18 years of age and older. The following cities and counties have exceptions that disallow the open carry of "assault weapons" (any firearm that is equipped with a magazine that will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or is designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock) or shotguns equipped with a magazine that holds more than 7 rounds: the Cities of Alexandria, Chesapeake, Fairfax, Falls Church, Newport News, Norfolk, Richmond, and Virginia Beach and in the Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Henrico, Loudoun, and Prince William. These restrictions do not apply to valid concealed carry permit holders. Stated differently, you may open carry an assault weapon/shotgun with more than 7 rounds with a permit in the aforementioned locations, but do not need a permit to do so in any other locality in Virginia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Virginia Someone just pulls his "facts" out of his ass then... [:D]

bounty44 -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 8:50:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX The car ramming the antifa crowd wasn't terrorism, it was a part of a gang fight wherein both sides were using deadly force I find myself wondering why people want to make the distinction between "terrorism" and "vehicular homicide?" (or maybe we'll end up with manslaughter even) ive only seen one quick clip of the car scene, but as I reflect on it more, I also wonder if the guy was bent on inflicting as much harm as possible on the protestors, why he didn't keep driving. he could have killed and injured many more. now please brain dead lefties---try not to turn that into my stating that's what I wished would have happened. think you could do that??

bounty44 -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 8:53:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX Someone just pulls his "facts" out of his ass then... [:D] it may be that, or it may be that the Wikipedia site isn't as comprehensive as it needs to be. a major problem with his posts, and others as well, is they make claims without referencing them so its impossible to accurately critique whats being said.

WhoreMods -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 8:57:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX Someone just pulls his "facts" out of his ass then... [:D] Do you have any idea how utterly pathetic that sounds coming from you?

Real0ne -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 9:10:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Stupid Question, from a gun owner, and who is licensed to carry a concealed weapon: Does it matter to anyone that the open carry law in Virginia only allows the open carry of rifles and shotguns while going to and from a dealer, range or from a place where hunting is being done? Open carry of pistols is one thing, but what the idiots on both sides were toting around violated the law, unless you are trying to say that every one of them on both sides were going to a gunsmith, just bought the damn things, going to or coming from a shooting range or had just gone hunting and decided at the spur of the moment to take part in a demonstration that, is in essence, stupid on both sides? I do have a solution to this issue. The federal government can allow gun owning members of both sides of the issue to use one of the live fire training areas used by the military, we bus em all in and let them blast each other to hell and gone. Then we leave the dead and wounded out for the buzzards, and whatever else wants to have a free meal. Great idea jlf! Be sure to make several more laws that require licensing taxes to go with that so they have to beg permission to exercize a right that needs no fucking permission at all. Your argument follows ZioJiz mass mind control judge deredd 'it da lewal' programming. Anything that infringes on the bearing arms is not a law, but color of law, not that anyone here including those who boast about being attorneys seem to grasp that concept simple as it is. NO ONE can constitutionally convert a right to a gubmint regulated privilege for ANY reason and that goes for the supreme court and the congress without an amendment to the constitution, good luck with that! Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943) U.S. Supreme Court Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) No. 480 Here again we are at the same place arent we.... I must have missed that part in the constitution too. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, EXCEPT if ZioJiz nutsucking asswipes in Virginia only allow the open carry of rifles and shotguns while going to and from a dealer, range or from a place where hunting is being done!" Sure enough there it is in the constitution, I missed it damn it, I need to read that constitution really close this time. Now if you think you or anyone else can constitutionally convert rights we already have to privileges by all means show us how its done other than through hook n crook legalese fucking mind games these courts are using against the people of this nation.

BoscoX -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 9:10:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX The car ramming the antifa crowd wasn't terrorism, it was a part of a gang fight wherein both sides were using deadly force I find myself wondering why people want to make the distinction between "terrorism" and "vehicular homicide?" (or maybe we'll end up with manslaughter even) ive only seen one quick clip of the car scene, but as I reflect on it more, I also wonder if the guy was bent on inflicting as much harm as possible on the protestors, why he didn't keep driving. he could have killed and injured many more. now please brain dead lefties---try not to turn that into my stating that's what I wished would have happened. think you could do that?? They are desperate for a "right winger" to be a "terrorist" because they feel that what one single "right wing extremist" does has to equal all of the carnage committed by Muslims, the hundreds of millions of innocents Muslims have slaughtered since the time of Mohammad and that carnage committed by Muslims all over the globe which continue to this day

longwayhome -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 9:17:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX The car ramming the antifa crowd wasn't terrorism, it was a part of a gang fight wherein both sides were using deadly force I find myself wondering why people want to make the distinction between "terrorism" and "vehicular homicide?" (or maybe we'll end up with manslaughter even) ive only seen one quick clip of the car scene, but as I reflect on it more, I also wonder if the guy was bent on inflicting as much harm as possible on the protestors, why he didn't keep driving. he could have killed and injured many more. now please brain dead lefties---try not to turn that into my stating that's what I wished would have happened. think you could do that?? I just assumed he was scared of being dragged out of his car and beaten to death if he carried on driving so he got the hell out of there. Funny how a white supremacist driving a car at his political opponents is labelled a gang fight and not terrorism. Intent to maim or kill. Check. Causing panic or terror in a public place. Check Politically motivated. Check. Terrorism. Check.

Real0ne -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 9:19:27 AM)
the only thing thats different between terrorism and laws already on the books, is terrorism is the use of an act of violence for political change, hence americans who thing they can use their guns to protect their rights are smoking some good shit, because the gubmint is way ahead of them, its disarmament by creating a body of laws that effectively neuter gun ownership useless. They think they are smart, well many people of this country are on to their bullshit ZioJiz despotic tyrannical lockdown.

BoscoX -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 9:20:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX Someone just pulls his "facts" out of his ass then... [:D] Do you have any idea how utterly pathetic that sounds coming from you? Compared to "that guy"? You know the one. The very best "debate" he can ever muster, are trollish and mindless personal attacks? Not pathetic in the least. In fact, awfully fucking god damned good. [:)]

longwayhome -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 9:23:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX The car ramming the antifa crowd wasn't terrorism, it was a part of a gang fight wherein both sides were using deadly force I find myself wondering why people want to make the distinction between "terrorism" and "vehicular homicide?" (or maybe we'll end up with manslaughter even) ive only seen one quick clip of the car scene, but as I reflect on it more, I also wonder if the guy was bent on inflicting as much harm as possible on the protestors, why he didn't keep driving. he could have killed and injured many more. now please brain dead lefties---try not to turn that into my stating that's what I wished would have happened. think you could do that?? They are desperate for a "right winger" to be a "terrorist" because they feel that what one single "right wing extremist" does has to equal all of the carnage committed by Muslims, the hundreds of millions of innocents Muslims have slaughtered since the time of Mohammad and that carnage committed by Muslims all over the globe which continue to this day There have been plenty of white "non-Muslim" terrorists in the last fifty years. Some of them could be described as right wing and some left wing, some as nationalists, separatists or white supremacists. Some of them have been American, some Irish, some Spanish, some German. You don't need to look very hard so nobody needs to make this guy a terrorist as part of some kind of cosmic balance. I'm sure you don't support this guy's actions any more than anyone supports Muslim terrorists. So your comment is irrelevant.

Real0ne -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 9:24:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome Funny how a white supremacist driving a car at his political opponents is labelled a gang fight and not terrorism. It tells me that they believe his motives were directed to harm a rival gang rather than make a political statement, which I disagree with as much as I disagree with the tearing down statues, both would fall under the definition of terrorism regardless of which side a person supports or neither.

Real0ne -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 9:27:46 AM)
Bosco has a major personal religious war against muslims

Lucylastic -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 9:29:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX The car ramming the antifa crowd wasn't terrorism, it was a part of a gang fight wherein both sides were using deadly force I find myself wondering why people want to make the distinction between "terrorism" and "vehicular homicide?" (or maybe we'll end up with manslaughter even) ive only seen one quick clip of the car scene, but as I reflect on it more, I also wonder if the guy was bent on inflicting as much harm as possible on the protestors, why he didn't keep driving. he could have killed and injured many more. now please brain dead lefties---try not to turn that into my stating that's what I wished would have happened. think you could do that?? He drove until he smashed into two cars...idiot

WhoreMods -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 9:30:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX Someone just pulls his "facts" out of his ass then... [:D] Do you have any idea how utterly pathetic that sounds coming from you? Compared to "that guy"? You know the one. The very best "debate" he can ever muster, are trollish and mindless personal attacks? Not pathetic in the least. In fact, awfully fucking god damned good. [:)] Because of course, there's nothing even slightly trollish or personal attack-y about you saying that rather trying to defend yourself.

stef -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 9:41:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX The car ramming the antifa crowd wasn't terrorism, it was a part of a gang fight wherein both sides were using deadly force I find myself wondering why people want to make the distinction between "terrorism" and "vehicular homicide?" (or maybe we'll end up with manslaughter even) ive only seen one quick clip of the car scene, but as I reflect on it more, I also wonder if the guy was bent on inflicting as much harm as possible on the protestors, why he didn't keep driving. he could have killed and injured many more. now please brain dead lefties---try not to turn that into my stating that's what I wished would have happened. think you could do that?? He drove until he smashed into two cars...idiot Looks like Bounty has finally gone full retard. I guess he can be added to the ignore bin with the rest of the deplorables.

Musicmystery -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 9:53:08 AM)
~FR~ So, if the neo-Nazi apologists are just about done with their knee-jerk silly defense of "but what about violent lefties . . . " That's not the topic of this thread. Add it the other threads that address that. The issue HERE is the suppression of the first amendment by misuse of the second amendment. If you can find gun-totting nuns that fit, fine. What the fuck ever. But if we could have a tiny bit of conversation on the actual topic, that'd be great. We already know what everyone thinks here about left/right. Yawn. Now, about the first and second amendments in conflict. I think we can agree, at least, that the founders didn't intend for armed militia to intimidate law-abiding citizens. Or law enforcement. Or even nasty protestors. Because if not, what separates us from Afghanistan or Somalia? Are we to be a nation of warlords? So how about it? First vs. second amendment. Issues raised in the article in the OP.

LadyPact -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 9:55:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick The government cannot tell you where you can or cannot carry a gun, but a private entity can (at least on their property). I'm guessing you've never lived on a military base. [:D] Or DC or Chicago As a side note Lady P, I have wax questions. Can I contact you on the other side? Is the 'other side' working this week? Sorry. My smart mouthed nature just had to do it. [;)] I'm always happy to help. If you've got questions on wax or any other thing related to a topping skill that I know about, please, feel free to ping my CM mail. You can reach me here, on Fet, or by starting a thread on the General forum. I'll be more than happy to hear from you. [:)]

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

8.203125E-02