https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Virginia-Has-Most-Registered-Machine-Guns-in-US-175291191.html

Assault weapons can be regulated with their high capacity magazines as real full automatic machine guns with the same high capacity magazines have been successfully federally regulated since Congress passed the 1934 National Firearms Act signed into law by President Franklin D Roosevelt . Many existing precedents exist to regulate not ban under federal and other state laws

A full ban of assault weapons in Virginia without reasonable regulation will be immediately challenged in the US courts and overturned by the US Supreme Court with the high courts order to Virginia . Regulate Assault Weapons - Do Not Ban Nor Confiscate

but you retarded libs keep telling us that regulating abortions will only drive them into the back alleys. Yet, you feel regulating guns is going to be met with obedience and compliance. Damn, you are some stupid motherfuckers.

rainbows and unicorns too Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> but you retarded libs keep telling us that
> regulating abortions will only drive them into the
> back alleys. Yet, you feel regulating guns is
> going to be met with obedience and compliance.
> Damn, you are some stupid motherfuckers.

Stop with the facts. That's not fair!!

What are you afraid of , your advocating confiscation if you cant support reasonable regulations . The high court has ruled many times that's not infringement

Its not every going to be the way it was face it . I have. Ill register mine with my tounge sticking out and a grimace on my face holding my nose and hope for the best , but I'll have a legal firearm that I can shoot, you will only get yours confiscated and you will be thrown into prison to boot . If a ban does take place Ill move them or the receivers out of Virginia and wait for the federal lawsuit to head to the high court then I will bring them back home when the ban is overturned or when lawless Democrats are thrown out to give the GOP the works back after Democrats overplay their hand with the gun ban and much more to disgust Virginians

Criminals Must Not Possess Arms Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What are you afraid of , your advocating
> confiscation if you cant support reasonable
> regulations . The high court has ruled many times
> that's not infringement
>
> Its not every going to be the way it was face it .
> I have. Ill register mine with my tounge sticking
> out and a grimace on my face holding my nose and
> hope for the best , but I'll have a legal firearm
> that I can shoot, you will only get yours
> confiscated and you will be thrown into prison to
> boot . If a ban does take place Ill move them or
> the receivers out of Virginia and wait for the
> federal lawsuit to head to the high court then I
> will bring them back home when the ban is
> overturned or when lawless Democrats are thrown
> out to give the GOP the works back after Democrats
> overplay their hand with the gun ban and much more
> to disgust Virginians


You are one worthless cuck. No one believes a pussy like you would ever own a gun. Fail.

The left won't ban guns, at first.

This war will happen one little piece at a time.

Remember the attempt to ban the green tip 5.56 ammo?
https://www.newsweek.com/obamas-proposed-ban-green-tip-bullets-misfires-313453

That was a test case. The reason they tried it was because the green tip bullet would penetrate police body armor. The problem is that ALL 223/5.56 bullets will penetrate the current police issue body armor. If the Man succeeded at banning the green tip, they could easily ban all 223/5.56 ammo. That wouldn't be a ban on a gun, but would essentially make the gun useless (at least to law-abiding people).

What the Man will continue to do is chip away at small goals until they have succeeded. Plan on attempts at a high capacity magazine ban, massive tax on ammunition, possible attempt to ban ammunition, a massive tax on gun purchases, and possible yearly tax stamp on every gun in a person's possession.


By the way, here's a list of countries and their rating gun deaths...find the United States in the list

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Attachments:

The typical Second Amendment's supporters argue ANY regulation of gun ownership, possession or use by law abiding citizens is unconstitutional.

When the so called Assault Weapon Ban was passed it didn't prevent people from owning so called assault weapons. It did ban the sale of such weapons, effectively limiting the stock to those already in private ownership. The laws were challenged and upheld as valid by conservative dominated courts, although that was pre-Heller. That would be one way to go.

I do agree with the general tone of the argument though. There are too many firearms in this country and too many otherwise law abiding citizens who are unwilling to give them up to make outright bans on gun ownership a realistic option. That approach failed miserably during Prohibition. It failed miserably in the War on Drugs. Why would anyone expect the result would be different with gun ownership? (Not rhetorical) Rather than outright bans the appropriate step at this point is regulation.

Start with the most basic one. Every change of gun ownership ought to require a background check. This isn't something that would have to just be done through those possessing valid Federal licenses. Prospective owners could also be cleared through the Virginia State Police, and they could be authorized to issue 30 day preclearance letters so that individuals who wanted to purchase from a private owner would not have the sale held up.

Real not pro forma regulation Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Start with the most basic one. Every change of gun
> ownership ought to require a background check.
> This isn't something that would have to just be
> done through those possessing valid Federal
> licenses. Prospective owners could also be
> cleared through the Virginia State Police, and
> they could be authorized to issue 30 day
> preclearance letters so that individuals who
> wanted to purchase from a private owner would not
> have the sale held up.

Agreed. Get rid of the private sale of guns without going through a FFL. I have sold a few of my guns to others and did it that way. It's safer.

But, as I said above, that isn't going to be the end of it. Tax stamps and ammunition bans will be attempted in addition to further gun bans and magazine bans.
Attachments:

>It did ban the sale of such weapons,

No it did not, two of mine were legally purchased from FFL dealers with 4473's . During the Clinton ban they did not have bayonet lugs one did not have a pistol grip as it was not made in the USA also no flash suppressors I could have installed a pistol grip if I also put in 4 other US made parts into the non US made one. With home made bump stocks long since discarded as possibly being in grey areas of the law way before todays time. I could rip off long full auto bursts with 75 round drum mags on my friends AK's bought during the Clinton ban with out any issues from them as I and my friend experimented with these devices that were legal

The Clinton Ban was a gun control propaganda inspired "cosmetic ban" for Democrats to crow that they passed a "Assault Weapon Ban " for the uninformed for votes, while not passing an unconstitutional full real ban .And that's why it was allowed to sunset and not renewed. Even high capacity magazines were not banned just if they were newly made after the ban took place . Police mags had LEO only stamped on them, you could buy all the high cap "pre ban" mags you could afford at high prices as a G-17 new 17 rd mag was going for at least 100 dollars . The terms Pre-Ban and Post-Ban were well known by those who had these firearms during the "Clinton Assault Weapons Ban"

The American people today agree in the majority that firearms sales should require background checks, they also support reasonable regulations of firearms but do not support any real full bans as they are unconstitutional and the high court has ruled that twice with handguns in Heller and McDonald. ARs and Aks are a part of the American peoples personal arms and have been now for decades, they are absolutely in "common use" by the people and the precedent as already stated that full autos have been successfully regulated since 1934 will see the high court overturn any Democrat unconstitutional gun ban

As far as tax stamps that will be seen and challenged . It has never been so far with full autos as there are not that many of them compared to semi auto copies called Assault Weapons by Democrats .I feel Chief Justice Roberts will have to stretch the constitution far out to interpret a constitutional right within the 10 original Bill of Rights to be something that can be "taxed" by congress as poll taxes to vote have been declared unconstitutional .

Ammo taxes and all insurance schemes are unconstitutional suppression of the right to keep and bear arms, and of any civil constitutional right , they are infringements and will also be challenged and overturned

"Civil Rights" do not just apply to race or sex , they are also firearm ownership rights

The sick part is all Democrats have to do is move the "assault weapons" into a new "Virginia Class III" with a Democrat fully controlled Congress and white house if they get that doing the same and there will be very little problems with these firearms just as the crime sprees with full autos stopped with the 1934 National Firearms Act's passage.

Not prebans they were made during the Clinton ban and legally sold by federal dealers all over this state and more

Criminals Must Not Possess Arms Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What are you afraid of , your advocating
> confiscation if you cant support reasonable
> regulations . The high court has ruled many times
> that's not infringement
>
> Its not every going to be the way it was face it .
> I have. Ill register mine with my tounge sticking
> out and a grimace on my face holding my nose and
> hope for the best , but I'll have a legal firearm
> that I can shoot, you will only get yours
> confiscated and you will be thrown into prison to
> boot . If a ban does take place Ill move them or
> the receivers out of Virginia and wait for the
> federal lawsuit to head to the high court then I
> will bring them back home when the ban is
> overturned or when lawless Democrats are thrown
> out to give the GOP the works back after Democrats
> overplay their hand with the gun ban and much more
> to disgust Virginians


NORTHAM WILL ONLY TAKE GUNS FROM NIGGERS THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR. ABOUT DAMN TIME TOO! DIXIECRAT TILL I DIE!

Mine Were Post Bans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not prebans they were made during the Clinton ban
> and legally sold by federal dealers all over this
> state and more


Correct. Nothing was "banned." The anti-gun nuts have no clue what the law was or is.

Most significantly, as a huge unintended consequence, the biggest effect of the "ban" was that it brought attention to these types of guns and created a massive market for manufacturers of "post-ban" guns and accessories which has grown by 1000X since the "ban" to the point that AR-type weapons now are the most popular with millions sold.

https://www.futuretimeline.net/forum/topic/13775-karl-marxs-opinion-on-gun-control/
Attachments:

Barrel Shroud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> AR-type weapons now are the most popular with millions
> sold.

16,000,000 "aasult style" rifles and growing...more than in the US military

What's your reasonable opinion Bill on this issue and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd amendment of the Bill Of Rights

DAJAX Whos defends the 2nd amendment as "The Reasonable OP" also known as Manassas Cuck LOL . If some of my cooking would cure the issue up and stop the proposed gun ban Id be happy to cook a few good truck stop specials for Gov Northam

I snuck in that extra a in Assault in the thread title , you know that's my mark LOL And I do prefer my revolvers hands off um!

DAJAX Calling BILL N Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> title , you know that's my mark LOL And I do
> prefer my revolvers hands off um!


revolvers are great...for collecting dust ;)

take a look at the CZ P10F

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC4AUSL9HaM
Attachments:

People will look at that video and say that those are a bunch of hicks with guns marching. But they are saying immigrants ARE welcome here from what I heard. And, there are blacks marching with them.

What a confusing video lol

Justice Scalia in his majority opinion addressed this:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was NOT A RIGHT TO KEEP AND CARRY ANY WEAPON WHATSOEVER IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , NOTHING IN OUR OPINION SHOULD BE TAKEN TO CAST DOUBT ON LONGSTANDING PROHIBITIONS on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” WE THINK THAT LIMITATION IS FAIRLY SUPPORTED BY THE HISTORICAL TRADITION OF PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF “DANGEROUS AND UNUSUAL WEAPONS.”

It may be objected that if WEAPONS THAT ARE MOST USEFUL IN MILITARY SERVICE—M-16 RIFLES AND THE LIKE—MAY BE BANNED, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

cites are omitted and emphasis added.

If you want to keep all the loonies,and crazed, insane and low IQ from having guns. Just don't allow any democrats to have them. Problem solved you are welcome.

The real answer is Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you want to keep all the loonies,and crazed,
> insane and low IQ from having guns. Just don't
> allow any democrats to have them. Problem solved
> you are welcome.

None of them do.
Very few Democrats ("Liberals") own guns, to begin with.

There, wish granted*

successfully by the 1934 NFA act a precedent to do the same with semi auto "assault weapons"

Heller was not a case about "semi auto assault weapons" but handguns

Scotus is waiting for RBG to croak to see 6-3 before going forward with 2nd cases.

The three L's which total up to L L L = Lunatics ...Leeches Liberals and Leftists who are all Democrats = problem solved

Ban The Lunatics From Guns Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The three L's which total up to L L L = Lunatics
> ...Leeches Liberals and Leftists who are all
> Democrats = problem solved

You Republicans are all Lunatics, though! Especially when you support a Fascist Demagogue like Trump!

Heller Speaks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Justice Scalia in his majority opinion addressed
> this:
>
> "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
> Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone
> through the 19th-century cases, commentators and
> courts routinely explained that the right was NOT
> A RIGHT TO KEEP AND CARRY ANY WEAPON WHATSOEVER IN
> ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER and for whatever purpose.
> For example, the majority of the 19th-century
> courts to consider the question held that
> prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were
> lawful under the Second Amendment or state
> analogues. Although we do not undertake an
> exhaustive historical analysis today of the full
> scope of the Second Amendment , NOTHING IN OUR
> OPINION SHOULD BE TAKEN TO CAST DOUBT ON
> LONGSTANDING PROHIBITIONS on the possession of
> firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws
> forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive
> places such as schools and government buildings,
> or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on
> the commercial sale of arms.
>
> We also recognize another important limitation on
> the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as
> we have explained, that the sorts of weapons
> protected were those “in common use at the
> time.” WE THINK THAT LIMITATION IS FAIRLY
> SUPPORTED BY THE HISTORICAL TRADITION OF
> PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF “DANGEROUS AND
> UNUSUAL WEAPONS.”
>
> It may be objected that if WEAPONS THAT ARE MOST
> USEFUL IN MILITARY SERVICE—M-16 RIFLES AND THE
> LIKE—MAY BE BANNED, then the Second Amendment
> right is completely detached from the prefatory
> clause. But as we have said, the conception of the
> militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s
> ratification was the body of all citizens capable
> of military service, who would bring the sorts of
> lawful weapons that they possessed at home to
> militia duty. It may well be true today that a
> militia, to be as effective as militias in the
> 18th century, would require sophisticated arms
> that are highly unusual in society at large.
> Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
> arms could be useful against modern-day bombers
> and tanks. But the fact that modern developments
> have limited the degree of fit between the
> prefatory clause and the protected right cannot
> change our interpretation of the right."
>
> cites are omitted and emphasis added.


Except they aren't "unusual" and they aren't military weapons.

And, of course, you emphasized only the parts that you like. lol

As full autos they were regulated by the NFA act of 1934 and can be legally purchased today for 18 K and up in Virginia

But the fact that modern developments
> have limited the degree of fit between the
> prefatory clause and

"the protected right cannot
> change our interpretation of the right."

Yes totally right

And that means semi autos that are only called "Assault weapons" to scare the unknowing by Democrats must be regulated not banned under Heller if gun controls are to be constitutional

As far as carrying them loaded in public as bearing arms VS keeping them at ones home or business transporting them unloaded and secured and shooting them on ranges that's another issue that the court may not want to hear but the banning of them with out regulating they will positively hear

Democrats are about to take a nasty bath with their unconstitutional gun ban with out even attempting to regulate and they will be seen as hypocrites and liars about Americans constitutional rights with the rule of law and the constitution to millions

DAJAX Northhams legacy will be as a black face racist Va Gov. who attempted to break the US Constitutions Bill Of Rights to pieces to attempt save face with gun bans due to his racism and was shut down by SCOTUS

I Never Once In My Life Wore Blackface Im neither superior nor inferior to any other humans

Never ever comply.

The real answer is Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you want to keep all the loonies,and crazed,
> insane and low IQ from having guns. Just don't
> allow any democrats to have them. Problem solved
> you are welcome.


And yet, the few liberals who do own guns commit 70%+ of the murders by gun in the US. It show how irresponsible liberals are.

>Especially when you support a Fascist Demagogue like Shitf trying to overthrow the peoples election of 2016

Barrickman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The real answer is Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If you want to keep all the loonies,and crazed,
> > insane and low IQ from having guns. Just don't
> > allow any democrats to have them. Problem
> solved
> > you are welcome.
>
> None of them do.
> Very few Democrats ("Liberals") own guns, to begin
> with.
>
> There, wish granted*

Of the hundreds or thousands of shootings in major cities every year, 99.9% are committed by Democrats. You are full of Schiff!

Do not disarm, do not comply.

rainbows and unicorns too Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> but you retarded libs keep telling us that
> regulating abortions will only drive them into the
> back alleys. Yet, you feel regulating guns is
> going to be met with obedience and compliance.
> Damn, you are some stupid motherfuckers.

Why regulate anything? I think you should be able to purchase as much C4 as you want from Home Depot. Why regulate that, or even biological weapons? Lets really be free instead of held down by Big Government? Its a serious question to rainbow and unicorn dude.

Why would anyone think that a comparison to C4 and WMDs to guns is a valid comparison?

Is a confirmed Leech Liberal Leftist Lunatic

the idea that "everything that hitler and marx and so no chu and taj mahal and fudkfl" said was WRONG or RIGHT is stupid

"everything or nothing he said is wrong" is too stupid to believe

marx believed (wrote down in his manefesto patently) that due to limited resources man was destined to kill each other in theft (petty or kingly theft both), and that "his method" was "the best" to reduce the number of "necessary murders"

marx is a total asshole to say the least

OP can't even spell assault weapons. Sit down, shut up and color.