72 Hours Before Rally: 'We Are Being Set Up' in VA

[29again]

Population density. You can't sit here and whine "We the people' and then leave out half the people because they all live in the same city. It's common sense that there is a higher population density (aka more people living in the same sized area say 25 square miles)in the city than there is in the countryside. You might only have 3,000 people in a 25 mile radius in the country, but move into a large city like Chigago and suddenly it jumps to 60,000. So yes, those big cities tend to control the MAJORITY of votes in their states as those cities hold the MAJORITY of people.

Yeah, I get that. I don't agree with it. Life in Chicago is completely different than life in any other town/city in IL... but Chicagoans don't care about anyone else in the state. That is my gripe, I guess. Things in the rest of the state are not like they are in the one big city. So,why can't we make the laws that the city needs effective just for that city, NOT the whole state?

You didn't have a problem with it when Trump won the presidential election over Hilary despite her having the popular vote. (Aka more individuals voting for her). That's because the electoral college took over. You only disagree with it when it's your side losing whatever the vote was and sorry but that's just not the way things work. I get that city life is different than small town life and what's ideal for one is not ideal for the other, but our voting system designed to reflect the voice of the people ALL the people, not just the country bumpkins, and not just the spoiled city slickers. Someone is ALWAYS going to disagree with the result and voice their disdain, especially when things don't go the way they want it to

The only thing voting for a president for the whole country and voting for a new law in one state have in common is that the people vote. Everything else is different. And the EC prevents that big city or 3 from controlling the whole country. I would be for a statewide EC kind of thing for new laws in each state... so the one or two cities don't control the whole state. But maybe that's just me and my issues with control. I know that things don't always go the way I want them to, and I do have a hard time looking at a map and seeing 95% of it going one way, but the 5% won. Just ain't right, somehow, imo
My basic philosophy is leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Don't mess that up with a bunch of stupid laws that I don't need or want or like.

[Momto2boys973]

Well, that’s democracy. Each person has the same saying. You don’t get more of a saying because you live in a less populated area. Chicago may have more individual votes than Galena, but that doesn’t mean the person Imm Galena should have more votes to make up for it when you’re talking about statewide choices. It gives more value to certain votes based on geography and that’s not fair. Democracy is what the majority of the PEOPLE want, regardless of where they live.

That’s actually the problem with the EC, it doesn’t take into account every individual and their votes.

Background checks have been the rule for a long time now. Of course people support it, they can't conceive of anything else. And the red flag thing seems rationale on it's surface, but it is such a slippery slope that it should not be a law. When you can be stripped of your rights BEFORE going before a judge, that is a problem. That law needs a bit of tweaking before I could support it.

Why is it OK that the couple big cities get to control the whole state? That's BS, and it happens in nearly every state. Richmond controls VA, Chicago controls IL, NYC controls NY, Columbus & Cleveland control OH, LA and SF control CA, NO controls LA... it's the same everywhere. One or two liberal fucked up cities control the whole state... where people generally live a completely different kind of life, but those city slickers think they know it all. And it sounds a lot like you are the same way. YOU don't like it, so nobody should have it. At least that's what I'm getting from your comments. I apologize if I'm wrong, though. Yes, I believe that overall people in this country want their 2A rights un-infringed upon. I do realize that some people don't like that right for themselves, but they don't seem to understand that they are not forced to own a weapon, just don't mess with anyone else's right to own one. That's all.

I am glad to hear that the people in your county are taking their right seriously. It sucks that you are so small-minded that you are making fun of them, though.

Population density. You can't sit here and whine "We the people' and then leave out half the people because they all live in the same city. It's common sense that there is a higher population density (aka more people living in the same sized area say 25 square miles)in the city than there is in the countryside. You might only have 3,000 people in a 25 mile radius in the country, but move into a large city like Chigago and suddenly it jumps to 60,000. So yes, those big cities tend to control the MAJORITY of votes in their states as those cities hold the MAJORITY of people.

Yeah, I get that. I don't agree with it. Life in Chicago is completely different than life in any other town/city in IL... but Chicagoans don't care about anyone else in the state. That is my gripe, I guess. Things in the rest of the state are not like they are in the one big city. So,why can't we make the laws that the city needs effective just for that city, NOT the whole state?

[WellPreserved]

Sure they do... when 90 - 91 out of 95 counties have declared themselves 2A sanctuaries, not to mention the independent cities and towns... No, not too many Virginians outside of Richmond are in favor of the new legislation. No bans, no registration, and no confiscation.
I should not have to explain what/who We the People are to an American.

You are confusing land with population. Yes, rural counties like the one I live in are declaring themselves 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries. Populous counties are not. A vast majority of Virginians support the new gun laws passed in Richmond, including the 40% of my rural county that voted Democrat in 2018.

Please show me the new Virginia legislation that bans guns or requires registration of guns. Confiscation occurs when someone is red-flagged and why would you not want that?

"By large margins, voters support requiring background checks on all gun sales (86 percent to 13 percent) and passing a "red flag" law to allow guns to be temporarily removed from someone deemed a threat (73 percent to 23 percent). By a smaller margin (54 percent to 44 percent), they back a ban on assault-style weapons." Note that the ban on assault-style weapons was dropped.

I think of the phrase "We the People" as a collective term for all Americans, not a minority group within a state. You seem to think a majority of Virginians agree with these attending the rally in Richmond. You are wrong.

Our county had a "muster" this past Saturday, forming a county militia (ages 16-55) to preserve 2nd amendment. A bunch of these hee-haws were in Richmond today. No Thanks!

Background checks have been the rule for a long time now. Of course people support it, they can't conceive of anything else. And the red flag thing seems rationale on it's surface, but it is such a slippery slope that it should not be a law. When you can be stripped of your rights BEFORE going before a judge, that is a problem. That law needs a bit of tweaking before I could support it.

Why is it OK that the couple big cities get to control the whole state? That's BS, and it happens in nearly every state. Richmond controls VA, Chicago controls IL, NYC controls NY, Columbus & Cleveland control OH, LA and SF control CA, NO controls LA... it's the same everywhere. One or two liberal fucked up cities control the whole state... where people generally live a completely different kind of life, but those city slickers think they know it all. And it sounds a lot like you are the same way. YOU don't like it, so nobody should have it. At least that's what I'm getting from your comments. I apologize if I'm wrong, though. Yes, I believe that overall people in this country want their 2A rights un-infringed upon. I do realize that some people don't like that right for themselves, but they don't seem to understand that they are not forced to own a weapon, just don't mess with anyone else's right to own one. That's all.

I am glad to hear that the people in your county are taking their right seriously. It sucks that you are so small-minded that you are making fun of them, though.

The change in gun laws in Virginia include background checks for private sales, only one gun purchase every 30 days, enabling municipalities to ban guns at events which require a permit, and red flag laws which do require a judge to sign off. Again, if you are going to protest gun legislation, it's a good idea to know what legislation you are protesting against?

This was posted by our mayor regarding the Sanctuary County vote:
"Did it cross your mind that not all of us share in your sentiment and don’t want you to defend us? Are you asking the Board of Supervisors to create a totalitarian local government when you ask them to “rein in those elements of the county” who don’t agree with your point of view? We are all allowed to have an opinion and a voice. You’re infringing on other’s freedoms to support your own. I’d recommend taking a holistic approach rather than dividing the citizens of ___ County. You’ve gotta bring everyone to the table, not just your own faction, if you want change. Everyone can agree we need to do something about gun violence. That’s where you start the discussion, not by creating a group of domestic terrorists. ____’s better than this."

This is what a local friend posted a few days ago:
"I have hunted in the past. I have lived with guns in my home for years. I have no problem with peaceful citizens possessing firearms. I am seriously considering purchasing a firearm in the near future. I have read the proposed legislation coming up for it's second attempt at passage and have no problem with it. I personally don't feel threatened by the government, state or otherwise. I do feel more than a little uncomfortable with an untrained, disorganized, group of strangers insisting that they know better than anyone what my rights may or may not be and how they are going to defend what they decide my rights are whether I want them to or not.
NO. I do not want to sit at that table and I can defend myself, if necessary. From people in that "militia" if need be."

As a supporter of 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Counties and militias, how would you respond to these comments?

[29again]

Oh but we are NOT a democracy! And that is the BEAUTY of the EC. It prevents CA and NY from ruling the country.
I understand that Chicago will have more votes than Galena, but my issue is when what Chicago votes for only benefits Chicago but the rest of the state is affected.

Do you understand how a primary works? Is it fair that candidates drop out before any of the primaries? Is it fair that some candidates are able to be on some primaries, but not ALL the primaries? The EC is closer to the way a primary works than how a "democracy" works. And that's quite all right because, again, we are not a democracy.

Well, that’s democracy. Each person has the same saying. You don’t get more of a saying because you live in a less populated area. Chicago may have more individual votes than Galena, but that doesn’t mean the person Imm Galena should have more votes to make up for it when you’re talking about statewide choices. It gives more value to certain votes based on geography and that’s not fair. Democracy is what the majority of the PEOPLE want, regardless of where they live.

That’s actually the problem with the EC, it doesn’t take into account every individual and their votes.

Population density. You can't sit here and whine "We the people' and then leave out half the people because they all live in the same city. It's common sense that there is a higher population density (aka more people living in the same sized area say 25 square miles)in the city than there is in the countryside. You might only have 3,000 people in a 25 mile radius in the country, but move into a large city like Chigago and suddenly it jumps to 60,000. So yes, those big cities tend to control the MAJORITY of votes in their states as those cities hold the MAJORITY of people.

Yeah, I get that. I don't agree with it. Life in Chicago is completely different than life in any other town/city in IL... but Chicagoans don't care about anyone else in the state. That is my gripe, I guess. Things in the rest of the state are not like they are in the one big city. So,why can't we make the laws that the city needs effective just for that city, NOT the whole state?

[Baconqueen13]

Background checks have been the rule for a long time now. Of course people support it, they can't conceive of anything else. And the red flag thing seems rationale on it's surface, but it is such a slippery slope that it should not be a law. When you can be stripped of your rights BEFORE going before a judge, that is a problem. That law needs a bit of tweaking before I could support it.

Why is it OK that the couple big cities get to control the whole state? That's BS, and it happens in nearly every state. Richmond controls VA, Chicago controls IL, NYC controls NY, Columbus & Cleveland control OH, LA and SF control CA, NO controls LA... it's the same everywhere. One or two liberal fucked up cities control the whole state... where people generally live a completely different kind of life, but those city slickers think they know it all. And it sounds a lot like you are the same way. YOU don't like it, so nobody should have it. At least that's what I'm getting from your comments. I apologize if I'm wrong, though. Yes, I believe that overall people in this country want their 2A rights un-infringed upon. I do realize that some people don't like that right for themselves, but they don't seem to understand that they are not forced to own a weapon, just don't mess with anyone else's right to own one. That's all.

I am glad to hear that the people in your county are taking their right seriously. It sucks that you are so small-minded that you are making fun of them, though.

Population density. You can't sit here and whine "We the people' and then leave out half the people because they all live in the same city. It's common sense that there is a higher population density (aka more people living in the same sized area say 25 square miles)in the city than there is in the countryside. You might only have 3,000 people in a 25 mile radius in the country, but move into a large city like Chigago and suddenly it jumps to 60,000. So yes, those big cities tend to control the MAJORITY of votes in their states as those cities hold the MAJORITY of people.



PS I actually checked the numbers. Population density for Chicago per SQ mile is 11,960 people. For the rest of Illinois on average (based on size of the state) it is 222 people per square mile. And THAT is why the big cities tend to "Control" the votes of the states, because that is where the majority of people are.

Density yes, but majority in number of people no. That is the frustration some on the right have. Illinois has a population of about 12.7 million people. Chicago has a population of about 2.7 million. Why should a city with 1/6, not even 1/2 or a 1/3 of the population “control” the state? They are not the majority.

They are the Majority of those that VOTED. the population of Illinois might be 12.7 million but in the 2016 presidential elections only 5 Million people voted. The PRESIDENTIAL elections. That's less than HALF the state. If the voter turnout is greater in large cities (and it often is) then, YES, they will carry the vote and that IS fair. 80% turnout in a large city will ALWAYS have greater pull than 65% turnout in a rural community and often the turnout is even smaller in rural communities. Get pissed all you want but that's the facts of it. You need to VOTE. Not only in the presidential elections but your local small town elections for school board, city board, mayor, all the way up. My mantra has always been if you don't vote you have no right to bitch about how things turn out.

The fact remains that unless it is a presidential election voter turnout tends to be rather low. In most local elections (non presidential) it's less than 20%. Hell for most primary elections to choose candidates for the presidential election it's barely hitting 50%

[29again]

You are confusing land with population. Yes, rural counties like the one I live in are declaring themselves 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries. Populous counties are not. A vast majority of Virginians support the new gun laws passed in Richmond, including the 40% of my rural county that voted Democrat in 2018.

Please show me the new Virginia legislation that bans guns or requires registration of guns. Confiscation occurs when someone is red-flagged and why would you not want that?

"By large margins, voters support requiring background checks on all gun sales (86 percent to 13 percent) and passing a "red flag" law to allow guns to be temporarily removed from someone deemed a threat (73 percent to 23 percent). By a smaller margin (54 percent to 44 percent), they back a ban on assault-style weapons." Note that the ban on assault-style weapons was dropped.

I think of the phrase "We the People" as a collective term for all Americans, not a minority group within a state. You seem to think a majority of Virginians agree with these attending the rally in Richmond. You are wrong.

Our county had a "muster" this past Saturday, forming a county militia (ages 16-55) to preserve 2nd amendment. A bunch of these hee-haws were in Richmond today. No Thanks!

Background checks have been the rule for a long time now. Of course people support it, they can't conceive of anything else. And the red flag thing seems rationale on it's surface, but it is such a slippery slope that it should not be a law. When you can be stripped of your rights BEFORE going before a judge, that is a problem. That law needs a bit of tweaking before I could support it.

Why is it OK that the couple big cities get to control the whole state? That's BS, and it happens in nearly every state. Richmond controls VA, Chicago controls IL, NYC controls NY, Columbus & Cleveland control OH, LA and SF control CA, NO controls LA... it's the same everywhere. One or two liberal fucked up cities control the whole state... where people generally live a completely different kind of life, but those city slickers think they know it all. And it sounds a lot like you are the same way. YOU don't like it, so nobody should have it. At least that's what I'm getting from your comments. I apologize if I'm wrong, though. Yes, I believe that overall people in this country want their 2A rights un-infringed upon. I do realize that some people don't like that right for themselves, but they don't seem to understand that they are not forced to own a weapon, just don't mess with anyone else's right to own one. That's all.

I am glad to hear that the people in your county are taking their right seriously. It sucks that you are so small-minded that you are making fun of them, though.

The change in gun laws in Virginia include background checks for private sales, only one gun purchase every 30 days, enabling municipalities to ban guns at events which require a permit, and red flag laws which do require a judge to sign off. Again, if you are going to protest gun legislation, it's a good idea to know what legislation you are protesting against?
I am going by what I have read last couple weeks or so. If those proposed laws have been changed, then good. I know there was a proposal for letting up on a ban in exchange for a registry. I did not like that idea. I am not a fan of banning any weapons, nor am I a fan of a registry of weapons.
This was posted by our mayor regarding the Sanctuary County vote:
"Did it cross your mind that not all of us share in your sentiment and don’t want you to defend us? Are you asking the Board of Supervisors to create a totalitarian local government when you ask them to “rein in those elements of the county” who don’t agree with your point of view? We are all allowed to have an opinion and a voice. You’re infringing on other’s freedoms to support your own. I’d recommend taking a holistic approach rather than dividing the citizens of ___ County. You’ve gotta bring everyone to the table, not just your own faction, if you want change. Everyone can agree we need to do something about gun violence. That’s where you start the discussion, not by creating a group of domestic terrorists. ____’s better than this."
Who says I want anything to change? And why is it OK to infringe on rights I already have constitutionally? Nobody said that anyone had to go buy a gun.... If your opinion is that you don't want one, then you don't have to have one. How simple is that?!
This is what a local friend posted a few days ago:
"I have hunted in the past. I have lived with guns in my home for years. I have no problem with peaceful citizens possessing firearms. I am seriously considering purchasing a firearm in the near future. I have read the proposed legislation coming up for it's second attempt at passage and have no problem with it. I personally don't feel threatened by the government, state or otherwise. I do feel more than a little uncomfortable with an untrained, disorganized, group of strangers insisting that they know better than anyone what my rights may or may not be and how they are going to defend what they decide my rights are whether I want them to or not.
NO. I do not want to sit at that table and I can defend myself, if necessary. From people in that "militia" if need be."
I understand this guy a lot better, but... why does he not want everyone else to have the same rights he has? That "untrained, disorganized group of strangers" can very easily become trained and organized, and they may not all be strangers. They aren't trying to create new rights, they are simply trying to keep the rights that they, and your friend!, already have. Just because the state might not be wanting something that affects your friend and his rights today, doesn't mean it won't be coming for something next month, next year.... and if there is nobody to stand up for your friend when he needs it, what will happen then?
As a supporter of 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Counties and militias, how would you respond to these comments?

[Francee89]

Background checks have been the rule for a long time now. Of course people support it, they can't conceive of anything else. And the red flag thing seems rationale on it's surface, but it is such a slippery slope that it should not be a law. When you can be stripped of your rights BEFORE going before a judge, that is a problem. That law needs a bit of tweaking before I could support it.

Why is it OK that the couple big cities get to control the whole state? That's BS, and it happens in nearly every state. Richmond controls VA, Chicago controls IL, NYC controls NY, Columbus & Cleveland control OH, LA and SF control CA, NO controls LA... it's the same everywhere. One or two liberal fucked up cities control the whole state... where people generally live a completely different kind of life, but those city slickers think they know it all. And it sounds a lot like you are the same way. YOU don't like it, so nobody should have it. At least that's what I'm getting from your comments. I apologize if I'm wrong, though. Yes, I believe that overall people in this country want their 2A rights un-infringed upon. I do realize that some people don't like that right for themselves, but they don't seem to understand that they are not forced to own a weapon, just don't mess with anyone else's right to own one. That's all.

I am glad to hear that the people in your county are taking their right seriously. It sucks that you are so small-minded that you are making fun of them, though.

Population density. You can't sit here and whine "We the people' and then leave out half the people because they all live in the same city. It's common sense that there is a higher population density (aka more people living in the same sized area say 25 square miles)in the city than there is in the countryside. You might only have 3,000 people in a 25 mile radius in the country, but move into a large city like Chigago and suddenly it jumps to 60,000. So yes, those big cities tend to control the MAJORITY of votes in their states as those cities hold the MAJORITY of people.



PS I actually checked the numbers. Population density for Chicago per SQ mile is 11,960 people. For the rest of Illinois on average (based on size of the state) it is 222 people per square mile. And THAT is why the big cities tend to "Control" the votes of the states, because that is where the majority of people are.

Density yes, but majority in number of people no. That is the frustration some on the right have. Illinois has a population of about 12.7 million people. Chicago has a population of about 2.7 million. Why should a city with 1/6, not even 1/2 or a 1/3 of the population “control” the state? They are not the majority.

Cook County, which is Chicago and most of its suburbs, has a population of over 5.1 million. That’s almost half the state in a single county, and scrolling this list it looks like they have 3 or 4 Republicans elected in that entire incredibly populous area: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinoi ... sentatives

[morgan]

Dumb fucks are planning to come charging to our state capitol with guns. The governor is trying to prevent what happened in Charlottesville or worse. That bitch Amanda F***ing Chase needs to sit the f**k down and stop fanning the flames. I live in this F***ing city and I am actually terrified for my husband to go to work tomorrow since his office is near downtown. As far as I'm concerned anyone coming with the guns to this town tomorrow is a F***ing terrorist and should be F***ing arrested.

Did the peaceful “terrorists” f**k up your city any worse than antifa fucks up cities? Or the pussycat brigade leaving their trash behind? LOL. This must be really hard on your ilk’s agenda.

[Baconqueen13]

Just as an example This past October we had our local elections. On the ballot were not only voting for people such as mayor, school-board members city board and water commissioners, but also Tax items, and measures such as gun control, and immigration. Our voter turnout for the county was one of the highest on record......at 46% of registered voters. The number of registered voters is HALF the population. Our population is roughly 42,000 for the county. Less than 22,000 are registered to vote, and of those only 10,000 people voted. That's less than a quarter of the population. My city alone accounted for just over 2,000 of those 10,000 votes and our city only had a 19% turnout. You gotta vote.

[Della]

Sure they do... when 90 - 91 out of 95 counties have declared themselves 2A sanctuaries, not to mention the independent cities and towns... No, not too many Virginians outside of Richmond are in favor of the new legislation. No bans, no registration, and no confiscation.
I should not have to explain what/who We the People are to an American.

You are confusing land with population. Yes, rural counties like the one I live in are declaring themselves 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries. Populous counties are not. A vast majority of Virginians support the new gun laws passed in Richmond, including the 40% of my rural county that voted Democrat in 2018.

Please show me the new Virginia legislation that bans guns or requires registration of guns. Confiscation occurs when someone is red-flagged and why would you not want that?

"By large margins, voters support requiring background checks on all gun sales (86 percent to 13 percent) and passing a "red flag" law to allow guns to be temporarily removed from someone deemed a threat (73 percent to 23 percent). By a smaller margin (54 percent to 44 percent), they back a ban on assault-style weapons." Note that the ban on assault-style weapons was dropped.

I think of the phrase "We the People" as a collective term for all Americans, not a minority group within a state. You seem to think a majority of Virginians agree with these attending the rally in Richmond. You are wrong.

Our county had a "muster" this past Saturday, forming a county militia (ages 16-55) to preserve 2nd amendment. A bunch of these hee-haws were in Richmond today. No Thanks!

Background checks have been the rule for a long time now. Of course people support it, they can't conceive of anything else. And the red flag thing seems rationale on it's surface, but it is such a slippery slope that it should not be a law. When you can be stripped of your rights BEFORE going before a judge, that is a problem. That law needs a bit of tweaking before I could support it.

Why is it OK that the couple big cities get to control the whole state? That's BS, and it happens in nearly every state. Richmond controls VA, Chicago controls IL, NYC controls NY, Columbus & Cleveland control OH, LA and SF control CA, NO controls LA... it's the same everywhere. One or two liberal fucked up cities control the whole state... where people generally live a completely different kind of life, but those city slickers think they know it all. And it sounds a lot like you are the same way. YOU don't like it, so nobody should have it. At least that's what I'm getting from your comments. I apologize if I'm wrong, though. Yes, I believe that overall people in this country want their 2A rights un-infringed upon. I do realize that some people don't like that right for themselves, but they don't seem to understand that they are not forced to own a weapon, just don't mess with anyone else's right to own one. That's all.

I am glad to hear that the people in your county are taking their right seriously. It sucks that you are so small-minded that you are making fun of them, though.

Which big city controls Florida?