Governor Prepares to Disarm Virginians: We are in the fight of our lives to protect the 2nd Amendment rights of the citizens of the state of Virginia. PLEASE Watch AND SHARE this video with everyone and everywhere you can. WE MUST get the word out quickly about this imminent threat to our rights!
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2966649466703302&id=344730025561939

That link refers to House Bill #67..

I attatch that Bill, from the state site...please show me where it says what is claimed?

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+ful+HB67

In doing a bit of searching..I found THIS..
Now, tell me WHY you believe anyone needs a fully or semi-automatic waeapons..also caled "assault weapons"?
Do you also have an issue with doing background checks on prospective gun owners to weed out those with mental illness or history of domestic abuse/ assault?

No one wants your actual hunting rifles or regular shotguns or handguns...
I have both a .22 rifle and a handgun..in case you were going to say I must hate guns.


"The legislation would have banned the importation, manufacture, sale, transfer, and possession of what it termed “assault firearms.” The term was defined to include any semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds or any semi-automatic centerfire rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one of several enumerated features. These features included, a folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, a second handgrip, a bayonet mount, a silencer, a flash suppressor, a muzzle brake, a muzzle compensator, or a threaded barrel. The legislation also would have banned commonly-owned semi-automatic shotguns and centerfire pistols with any one of several prohibiting features.

You didn't answer the question:

Now, tell me WHY you believe anyone needs a fully or semi-automatic waeapons..also caled "assault weapons"?
Do you also have an issue with doing background checks on prospective gun owners to weed out those with mental illness or history of domestic abuse/ assault?

Plus I am aware what "rifling" is....and that shotguns do not have that.

Now, tell me WHY you believe anyone needs a fully or semi-automatic waeapons..also caled "assault weapons"?

Do you also have an issue with doing background checks on prospective gun owners to weed out those with mental illness or history of domestic abuse/ assault?

you have to 'justify' speaking if it incites actions that are harmful to others. Rights are not absolutes, just saying.

2nd Amendment. Gun ownership/bearing arms is a right.

Tell me why you believe anyone needs to speak or sing? Or congregate on internet forums? Or worship a god? Or be protected from search and seizure? Or be tried by jury?

No one needs to justify their rights to anyone else, let alone a government.
We could outlaw a lot of things if we start winnowing it down to what one person defines another "needs."

Laws aren't there to define "needs" by which people have to adhere to/justify themselves in order to express their rights.


Sort of.
"Mental illness" is a rather broad term.
Not to mention, psychologists and doctors are not elected officials.
They are fallible and not absolutely impartial or unbiased.
Also psychiatry, psychology, medicine is constantly changing, being relabeled. People used to have Asperger's. That's no longer a diagnosis.
Look up "Drapetomania."

Other than that, background checks aren't there to determine if someone should be allowed to do something, just to check to see if there's something that prevents.

Huge difference between mental illness and domestic abuse/assault. The latter are crimes. Violations of the rights of someone else. They go through a trial process.
Having a mental illness is not a crime. It doesn't violate another persons rights, nor (unless they're found legally mentally incapable, such as an i.q. under 75, or insane) do they go through a judicial process where they can argue against it.

I have a problem with background checks by the government to try and dig up dirt in order to keep someone from expressing their rights, especially without their say in the matter e.g. "mental illness/red flag laws."
I don't have a problem with background checks to determine if someone has a current legal injunction against their expressing their right.
People that go to prison, do their time, can/should sue for removal of injunctions against their ability to express their rights.

"Laws" don't magically keep people from doing things.
"Laws" are simply threats. They aren't "supposed" to be a tool for social engineering. Only "if you do x, y are the consequences." With "x" and "y" clearly defined as objectively as possible.

I do not believe any good law can come from "we think you may possibly do something bad sometime, because these people with Dr. in their name say so, or agree with us, then that gives us license to suspend/abridge your rights, and the onus is on you, the individual, on your dime, to prove us, the government, wrong. Prove your innocence and we'll remove the guilty verdict."


So, TLDR, IMO no one needs to justify their ownership of a semi/fully automatic rifle, anymore than you need to justify speaking.
And IMO the government does not have inherent rights to abridge individual rights.
The onus is on the government to prove/justify their abridging of rights, not on the individual to justify/prove their expression of rights.

Gun confiscation has already killed several law abiding citizens.
The liberals have fired the first shots.

My High rise apartment needs more parking space for tanks and howitzers.