What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[Just Joshin']

16 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

This is what I told him up thread:

 

If you want to call it that. My guess would be some disease like syphilis but I don't think it's contagious between species. 

 

He responded that he used penicillin to cure himself.

 

 

Was the goat cured?

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, Just Joshin' said:

Was the goat cured?

No, but it enjoyed the "suppositories" Tiberius gave him. 

[B-Man]

Huge overflow crowd assembles at Virginia Beach council meeting over gun sanctuary status

 

Unlike sanctuary cities for illegals, the Washington Post considers the movement propelling Second Amendment sanctuaries a fad and “mainly symbolic.” That only proves further how out-of-touch mainstream outlets like the Washington Post are — more and more municipalities are declaring themselves gun sanctuaries, especially in Virginia, where Gov. Ralph “Coonman” Northam and a majority Democrat legislature have made noises about gun confiscation.

 

The action Monday night was in Virginia Beach, and a video screen had to be set up outside for the huge overflow crowd. Nearly a hundred citizens had signed up to give three-minute statements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 hours ago, Tiberius said:

 

Gun thugs looking to intimidate the democratic process 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

7 hours ago, B-Man said:

Huge overflow crowd assembles at Virginia Beach council meeting over gun sanctuary status

 

Unlike sanctuary cities for illegals, the Washington Post considers the movement propelling Second Amendment sanctuaries a fad and “mainly symbolic.” That only proves further how out-of-touch mainstream outlets like the Washington Post are — more and more municipalities are declaring themselves gun sanctuaries, especially in Virginia, where Gov. Ralph “Coonman” Northam and a majority Democrat legislature have made noises about gun confiscation.

 

The action Monday night was in Virginia Beach, and a video screen had to be set up outside for the huge overflow crowd. Nearly a hundred citizens had signed up to give three-minute statements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ya, you know as well as I do this is just going to be Charlottesville all over again with the fig leaf of a gun rights cover. Trying to turn this into a women's rights thing, oh brother 

[LeviF]

59 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Ya, you know as well as I do this is just going to be Charlottesville all over again with the fig leaf of a gun rights cover. Trying to turn this into a women's rights thing, oh brother 

 

The right to armed resistance to tyranny is one of the few natural rights we actually have.  The fact that these folks haven't resorted to armed resistance yet is a sign that they still believe in the process that bad actors are abusing in an attempt to curtail that right.  Be happy!

[B-Man]

Hot Mic Catches Two Virginia Democrats Scheming to Ignore Speeches by 'Mixed Up Little Kid' 'Gun Guys'

 

When Virginia went blue in 2018 with the help of Obama "wingman" Eric Holder and anti-gun mack daddy, Michael Bloomberg, law-abiding gun owners were left on their own.

 

To fight back against the anti-gun blue wave, thousands of Virginians stormed public meetings and passed so-called "Second Amendment Sanctuary" laws to preserve their rights. It was an in-your-face response to Democrats who are fond of sanctuaries for non-citizens.

 

Democrats revealed a spending plan that included a force to remove guns from people and more spending on criminal justice for jail space and prosecutions. Then Democrats asked for public input.

 

Hundreds of Virginians have turned up at these budget meetings to talk about gun rights. Some Democrat lawmakers have listened politely, others have had a sudden urge to go to the bathroom when the "gun guys" show up to testify.

 

.

[row_33]

12 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

The right to armed resistance to tyranny is one of the few natural rights we actually have.  The fact that these folks haven't resorted to armed resistance yet is a sign that they still believe in the process that bad actors are abusing in an attempt to curtail that right.  Be happy!

 

this is the area I can "go there" with my US Conservative brothers and sisterse

 

but I support your right to self-determine your Constitution, and tweaking liberals is a wonderful lifelong pursuit as well

 

 

[B-Man]

The following bill, profiled January 6, 2020, in the Virginia House of Delegates makes indoor shooting ranges not owned by government illegal to own and operate.

 

HOUSE BILL NO. 567

Offered January 8, 2020

Prefiled January 6, 2020

 

A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 3 of Chapter 12 of Title 18.2 a section numbered 18.2-511.2, relating to indoor shooting ranges; prohibited in buildings not owned or leased by the Commonwealth or federal government; exceptions; civil penalty.

---------- Patron-- Helmer

---------- Committee Referral Pending

---------- Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

 

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding in Article 3 of Chapter 12 of Title 18.2 a section numbered 18.2-511.2 as follows:

§ 18.2-511.2. Indoor shooting ranges; prohibited in private buildings; exceptions; penalty.

A. As used in this section, "indoor shooting range" means any fully enclosed or indoor area or facility designed for the use of rifles, shotguns, pistols, silhouettes, skeet, trap, or black powder or any other similar sport shooting.

B. It is unlawful to operate an indoor shooting range in any building not owned or leased by the Commonwealth or the federal government unless (i) fewer than 50 employees work in the building or (ii) (a) at least 90 percent of the users of the indoor shooting range are law-enforcement officers, as defined in § 9.1-101, or federal law-enforcement officers, (b) the indoor shooting range maintains a log of each user's name, phone number, address, and the law-enforcement agency where such user is employed, and (c) the indoor shooting range verifies each user's identity and address by requiring all users to present a government-issued photo-identification card.

C. Any person that violates the provisions of this section is subject to a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 nor more than $100,000 for the initial violation and $5,000 per day for each day of violation thereafter.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I see the 50 employee bullsh*t, but I would ask, what is the purpose of this 'legislation' ?

 

And this is going to stop actual criminals.....how?

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

[LeviF]

11 minutes ago, B-Man said:

The following bill, profiled January 6, 2020, in the Virginia House of Delegates makes indoor shooting ranges not owned by government illegal to own and operate.

 

HOUSE BILL NO. 567

Offered January 8, 2020

Prefiled January 6, 2020

 

A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 3 of Chapter 12 of Title 18.2 a section numbered 18.2-511.2, relating to indoor shooting ranges; prohibited in buildings not owned or leased by the Commonwealth or federal government; exceptions; civil penalty.

---------- Patron-- Helmer

---------- Committee Referral Pending

---------- Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

 

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding in Article 3 of Chapter 12 of Title 18.2 a section numbered 18.2-511.2 as follows:

§ 18.2-511.2. Indoor shooting ranges; prohibited in private buildings; exceptions; penalty.

A. As used in this section, "indoor shooting range" means any fully enclosed or indoor area or facility designed for the use of rifles, shotguns, pistols, silhouettes, skeet, trap, or black powder or any other similar sport shooting.

B. It is unlawful to operate an indoor shooting range in any building not owned or leased by the Commonwealth or the federal government unless (i) fewer than 50 employees work in the building or (ii) (a) at least 90 percent of the users of the indoor shooting range are law-enforcement officers, as defined in § 9.1-101, or federal law-enforcement officers, (b) the indoor shooting range maintains a log of each user's name, phone number, address, and the law-enforcement agency where such user is employed, and (c) the indoor shooting range verifies each user's identity and address by requiring all users to present a government-issued photo-identification card.

C. Any person that violates the provisions of this section is subject to a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 nor more than $100,000 for the initial violation and $5,000 per day for each day of violation thereafter.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I see the 50 employee bullsh*t, but I would ask, what is the purpose of this 'legislation' ?

 

And this is going to stop actual criminals.....how?

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

I guess to prevent someone from renting a floor of a privately owned office building and turning it into a shooting range?  I don't get it either.

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, LeviF91 said:

 

The right to armed resistance to tyranny is one of the few natural rights we actually have.  The fact that these folks haven't resorted to armed resistance yet is a sign that they still believe in the process that bad actors are abusing in an attempt to curtail that right.  Be happy!

Resistance? For what? Because they can't win elections? Yes, be happy, we live in the best society this world has to offer. 

[DC Tom]

20 minutes ago, B-Man said:

The following bill, profiled January 6, 2020, in the Virginia House of Delegates makes indoor shooting ranges not owned by government illegal to own and operate.

 

HOUSE BILL NO. 567

Offered January 8, 2020

Prefiled January 6, 2020

 

A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 3 of Chapter 12 of Title 18.2 a section numbered 18.2-511.2, relating to indoor shooting ranges; prohibited in buildings not owned or leased by the Commonwealth or federal government; exceptions; civil penalty.

---------- Patron-- Helmer

---------- Committee Referral Pending

---------- Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

 

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding in Article 3 of Chapter 12 of Title 18.2 a section numbered 18.2-511.2 as follows:

§ 18.2-511.2. Indoor shooting ranges; prohibited in private buildings; exceptions; penalty.

A. As used in this section, "indoor shooting range" means any fully enclosed or indoor area or facility designed for the use of rifles, shotguns, pistols, silhouettes, skeet, trap, or black powder or any other similar sport shooting.

B. It is unlawful to operate an indoor shooting range in any building not owned or leased by the Commonwealth or the federal government unless (i) fewer than 50 employees work in the building or (ii) (a) at least 90 percent of the users of the indoor shooting range are law-enforcement officers, as defined in § 9.1-101, or federal law-enforcement officers, (b) the indoor shooting range maintains a log of each user's name, phone number, address, and the law-enforcement agency where such user is employed, and (c) the indoor shooting range verifies each user's identity and address by requiring all users to present a government-issued photo-identification card.

C. Any person that violates the provisions of this section is subject to a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 nor more than $100,000 for the initial violation and $5,000 per day for each day of violation thereafter.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I see the 50 employee bullsh*t, but I would ask, what is the purpose of this 'legislation' ?

 

And this is going to stop actual criminals.....how?

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

The purpose of that legislation is to shut down the NRA headquarters in Fairfax.

 

Really...how many other ranges employ more than 50 people?

[LeviF]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Resistance? For what? Because they can't win elections? Yes, be happy, we live in the best society this world has to offer. 

 

It doesn't matter who wins elections.  Natural rights are natural rights.  A legitimately elected government official (or legitimately elected government) becomes illegitimate as soon as he (it) infringes on the people's natural rights.

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

The purpose of that legislation is to shut down the NRA headquarters in Fairfax.

 

Really...how many other ranges employ more than 50 people?

 

Ah, there it is.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Ah, there it is.

 

Yep. Democrats, silencing their opposition since forever. But let's keep pretending their harmless and do nothing to silence them first.

[Tiberius]

27 minutes ago, B-Man said:

The following bill, profiled January 6, 2020, in the Virginia House of Delegates makes indoor shooting ranges not owned by government illegal to own and operate.

 

HOUSE BILL NO. 567

Offered January 8, 2020

Prefiled January 6, 2020

 

A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 3 of Chapter 12 of Title 18.2 a section numbered 18.2-511.2, relating to indoor shooting ranges; prohibited in buildings not owned or leased by the Commonwealth or federal government; exceptions; civil penalty.

---------- Patron-- Helmer

---------- Committee Referral Pending

---------- Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

 

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding in Article 3 of Chapter 12 of Title 18.2 a section numbered 18.2-511.2 as follows:

§ 18.2-511.2. Indoor shooting ranges; prohibited in private buildings; exceptions; penalty.

A. As used in this section, "indoor shooting range" means any fully enclosed or indoor area or facility designed for the use of rifles, shotguns, pistols, silhouettes, skeet, trap, or black powder or any other similar sport shooting.

B. It is unlawful to operate an indoor shooting range in any building not owned or leased by the Commonwealth or the federal government unless (i) fewer than 50 employees work in the building or (ii) (a) at least 90 percent of the users of the indoor shooting range are law-enforcement officers, as defined in § 9.1-101, or federal law-enforcement officers, (b) the indoor shooting range maintains a log of each user's name, phone number, address, and the law-enforcement agency where such user is employed, and (c) the indoor shooting range verifies each user's identity and address by requiring all users to present a government-issued photo-identification card.

C. Any person that violates the provisions of this section is subject to a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 nor more than $100,000 for the initial violation and $5,000 per day for each day of violation thereafter.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I see the 50 employee bullsh*t, but I would ask, what is the purpose of this 'legislation' ?

 

And this is going to stop actual criminals.....how?

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

This article shows all the proposed guns laws, I do not see this law in there. 

 

https://wtop.com/virginia/2020/01/the-gun-bills-that-are-a-big-focus-for-new-democratic-led-virginia-general-assembly/

 

[LeviF]

Just now, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Yep. Democrats, silencing their opposition since forever. But let's keep pretending their harmless and do nothing to silence them first.

 

Yep.  They're attempting to dismantle "opposing" institutions in order to form their one-party state.

 

Not to mention that in 10 years that 50 employee bit will be considered a "loophole" and then Dems will want to close it.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, LeviF91 said:

 

Yep.  They're attempting to dismantle "opposing" institutions in order to form their one-party state.

 

 

 

But we should do nothing to combat it, because that would violate "principles."
 

Pragmatism > idealism.

 

[Tiberius]

4 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

It doesn't matter who wins elections.  Natural rights are natural rights.  A legitimately elected government official (or legitimately elected government) becomes illegitimate as soon as he (it) infringes on the people's natural rights.

 

Ah, there it is.

Is taking away a wife beaters guns a reason good enough reason to revolt? I'd say it isn't. 

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

This article shows all the proposed guns laws, I do not see this law in there. 

 

https://wtop.com/virginia/2020/01/the-gun-bills-that-are-a-big-focus-for-new-democratic-led-virginia-general-assembly/

 

 

Do you understand the concept of "time?"  The article predates the filing of the bill. 

[LeviF]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

This article shows all the proposed guns laws, I do not see this law in there. 

 

https://wtop.com/virginia/2020/01/the-gun-bills-that-are-a-big-focus-for-new-democratic-led-virginia-general-assembly/

 

 

https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+HB567

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Is taking away a wife beaters guns a reason good enough reason to revolt? I'd say it isn't. 

 

Let's not pretend that that is what this all is about.  You linked an article that says there's more than that and you know it.  Don't be disingenuous for the sake of advancing an illegitimate point.

[Gary M]

24 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Is taking away a wife beaters guns a reason good enough reason to revolt? I'd say it isn't. 

 

How about taking a away a beaten wife's right to self defense? 

 

'They say God made man, but Sam Colt made them equal.

[B-Man]

ASTROTURF: March For Our Lives Raised Nearly All Funding from Secret Six-Figure Donations.

The gun-control group responsible for a 2018 march on Washington, D.C. raised the vast majority of its funds from undisclosed donations over six figures, a recently-released tax document shows.

 

The March For Our Lives Action Fund, a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization launched in the aftermath of the deadly 2018 shootings at Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, is bankrolled almost entirely by large donations in excess of $100,000. The group reported $17,879,150 in contributions and grants over the course of 2018, its first year of operations. 95 percent of those contributions came from 36 donations between $100,000 and $3,504,717—a grand total of $16,922,331.

 

 

Some enterprising reporter want to ask Michael Bloomberg about this?

 

 

 

.

[Tiberius]

43 minutes ago, B-Man said:

ASTROTURF: March For Our Lives Raised Nearly All Funding from Secret Six-Figure Donations.

The gun-control group responsible for a 2018 march on Washington, D.C. raised the vast majority of its funds from undisclosed donations over six figures, a recently-released tax document shows.

 

The March For Our Lives Action Fund, a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization launched in the aftermath of the deadly 2018 shootings at Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, is bankrolled almost entirely by large donations in excess of $100,000. The group reported $17,879,150 in contributions and grants over the course of 2018, its first year of operations. 95 percent of those contributions came from 36 donations between $100,000 and $3,504,717—a grand total of $16,922,331.

 

 

Some enterprising reporter want to ask Michael Bloomberg about this?

 

 

 

.

So? 

[LeviF]

20 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So? 

 

It's more evidence that the movement to disarm the American people comes from a few "elites" trying to oppress many.  Big money corrupts a lot of political causes, the pursuit to strip the American people of their natural rights is no exception.

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Is taking away a wife beaters guns a reason good enough reason to revolt? I'd say it isn't. 

It's obvious that you prefer a woman getting beaten to death in a long drawn out ordeal than a quick, merciful death by gunshot. Is that so you have more time for laughter? 

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, LeviF91 said:

 

It's more evidence that the movement to disarm the American people comes from a few "elites" trying to oppress many.  Big money corrupts a lot of political causes, the pursuit to strip the American people of their natural rights is no exception.

Rich people can donate to whatever cause they want. Gun control isn't oppression, it's a public safety issue. Republicans screaming about big money in politics its pretty funny. Free speech! Right? 

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

It's obvious that you prefer a woman getting beaten to death in a long drawn out ordeal than a quick, merciful death by gunshot. Is that so you have more time for laughter? 

[B-Man]

 

VA Gun Owners On Red Alert As Legislative Session Begins.

 

 

 

[LeviF]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Rich people can donate to whatever cause they want. Gun control isn't oppression, it's a public safety issue. Republicans screaming about big money in politics its pretty funny. Free speech! Right? 

 

Weren't you the one complaining about whataboutism in another thread?  I didn't say rich people can't do what they want with their money, I said that big money corrupts, and when 1/6th of your funding comes from one person, that one person can dictate a lot about what you do.  So the question is, why would someone who has $3M to throw around donate that money to the suppression of the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms, and what strings are they attaching to that $3M?

 

And yes, disarming one's people is oppression.  Any suppression of the natural rights is, by definition, oppression.

[Foxx]

10 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

... Gun control isn't oppression, it's a public safety issue. ...

 

how's that working out for say... Chicago?

[Tiberius]

22 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Weren't you the one complaining about whataboutism in another thread?  I didn't say rich people can't do what they want with their money, I said that big money corrupts, and when 1/6th of your funding comes from one person, that one person can dictate a lot about what you do.  So the question is, why would someone who has $3M to throw around donate that money to the suppression of the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms, and what strings are they attaching to that $3M?

 

And yes, disarming one's people is oppression.  Any suppression of the natural rights is, by definition, oppression.

Free speech. He/she obviously cares about the issue, so they are speaking out (spending) on the issue. Again, so? 

[Tiberius]

18 minutes ago, Foxx said:

how's that working out for say... Chicago?

 I know, terrible 

[LeviF]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Free speech. He/she obviously cares about the issue, so they are speaking out (spending) on the issue. Again, so? 

 

Again, you miss the point.  I haven't argued that it's not free speech, I'm arguing that this movement to strip people of their rights is supported largely by a small amount of very wealthy people.  The question is, why do the uber-wealthy disproportionately support the disarming and trampling on the natural rights of the American people?

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Again, you miss the point.  I haven't argued that it's not free speech, I'm arguing that this movement to strip people of their rights is supported largely by a small amount of very wealthy people.  The question is, why do the uber-wealthy disproportionately support the disarming and trampling on the natural rights of the American people?

And the majority of voters, right? The voters elected this legislature and governor. 

 

I mean if you want to go down that road you have to admit things you don't want to, like the Russia influence campaign in 2016 elected Trump president.  How much money would it equal to have your opponents email hacked, thousands and thousands of facebook and twitter ads and fake personalities, etc. You don't believe a foreign government with all its power could influence our electorate, do you? (Not a whataboutism, just a direct comparison) 

[LeviF]

5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

And the majority of voters, right? The voters elected this legislature and governor. 

 

I mean if you want to go down that road you have to admit things you don't want to, like the Russia influence campaign in 2016 elected Trump president.  How much money would it equal to have your opponents email hacked, thousands and thousands of facebook and twitter ads and fake personalities, etc. You don't believe a foreign government with all its power could influence our electorate, do you? (Not a whataboutism, just a direct comparison) 

 

As you point out, voters are influenced by lots of things.  It's okay to think that things aren't right with our government on multiple fronts.  But let's not pretend that there aren't multiple groups of people out to influence you.  The voters (and electors) made Donald Trump president too.  It's not A did this and B did that.  It's A and B did this and then B and C did that.  A and C are just different influences.  I'm not conceding anything re: Russia and the reach of their influences one way or another in 2016 but it's useful to make a point.  Why do A and C want to influence B (the voters) so much?  What are they after? 

 

And, back to the thread, who does it benefit to strip Americans of their ability to exercise their natural right to armed resistance?

 

I don't necessarily know the answers but I believe that the less the government impedes on my natural rights, the better.  The natural right to armed resistance leaves a lot of options on the table, which was the reason the founders explicitly protected it.

[Tiberius]

6 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

As you point out, voters are influenced by lots of things.  It's okay to think that things aren't right with our government on multiple fronts.  But let's not pretend that there aren't multiple groups of people out to influence you.  The voters (and electors) made Donald Trump president too.  It's not A did this and B did that.  It's A and B did this and then B and C did that.  A and C are just different influences.  I'm not conceding anything re: Russia and the reach of their influences one way or another in 2016 but it's useful to make a point.  Why do A and C want to influence B (the voters) so much?  What are they after? 

 

And, back to the thread, who does it benefit to strip Americans of their ability to exercise their natural right to armed resistance?

 

I don't necessarily know the answers but I believe that the less the government impedes on my natural rights, the better.  The natural right to armed resistance leaves a lot of options on the table, which was the reason the founders explicitly protected it.

A president not interested in pushing a democratic foreign policy. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

 

 

And, back to the thread, who does it benefit to strip Americans of their ability to exercise their natural right to armed resistance?

 

I don't necessarily know the answers but I believe that the less the government impedes on my natural rights, the better.  The natural right to armed resistance leaves a lot of options on the table, which was the reason the founders explicitly protected it.

A lot, possibly a vast majority don't buy into the armed resistance argument. Voting is how we fight. 

 

And banning certain weapons, background checks, stopping wife beaters from having guns  just makes sense to the majority of voters. Voting and making laws are natural rights, too. 

[Foxx]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

A president not interested in pushing a democratic foreign policy. ...

help me out here... just what exactly is a, "democratic foreign policy"?

 

TYIA 

 

also, voting and making laws are natural rights, yes. as long that is, as they do not abridge constitutional rights.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Foxx

[LeviF]

11 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

A lot, possibly a vast majority don't buy into the armed resistance argument. Voting is how we fight. 

 

 

And what happens when they take away your right to vote?    What option do you have left if they've taken your every ability to resist?

[bdutton]

54 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Free speech. He/she obviously cares about the issue, so they are speaking out (spending) on the issue. Again, so? 

So you agree then that unlimited spending in politics is free speech as well.  Good.

[Tiberius]

14 minutes ago, Foxx said:

help me out here... just what exactly is a, "democratic foreign policy"?

 

TYIA 

 

also, voting and making laws are natural rights, yes. as long that is, as they do not abridge constitutional rights.

Our foreign policy since the end of WW2, spreading democracy. You do remember Reagan, right? 

8 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

And what happens when they take away your right to vote?    What option do you have left if they've taken your every ability to resist?

Voting rights have, generally, been expanding in our country. Age, sex and race are all barriers than have fallen in the last century. Guns did not play a role in expanding those rights 

4 minutes ago, bdutton said:

So you agree then that unlimited spending in politics is free speech as well.  Good.

So you agree that the spending in Virginia on gun control efforts are free speech, right? 

[bdutton]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So you agree that the spending in Virginia on gun control efforts are free speech, right? 

 

Yep... from very few, very rich, anti constitutional, gun grabbers.

[LeviF]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

Voting rights have, generally, been expanding in our country. Age, sex and race are all barriers than have fallen in the last century. Guns did not play a role in expanding those rights 

 

The Black Panthers would like to have a word with you. 

 

In any case, you're missing the forest for the trees.  Armed resistance is what gave us back the right to self-government that had been trampled on via tyranny.