2nd Amendment Sanctuaries

[ameridaddy]

....
To accomplish we have to get the moderates, who don't have strong feelings one way or the other about gun rights, on our side. We can't afford to come off looking like a bunch of irresponsible rednecks, or insensitive right wing extremists as that will turn those moderates against us. Instead we have to come off as responsible gun owners who have wives and kids and jobs and normal civic activities like everyone else.

For some, that will mean filtering opinions on gays, immigrants, affordable health care, abortion, and other issues where moderate may have much stronger feelings than on guns. To keep our 2A rights, we need to identify common ground (such as why a threat to 2A rights will evolve into a threat to 1A rights, etc) and common cause, rather than continuing to divide ourselves against each other. It'll mean making some compromises in our world view for the good of all and developing tolerance for the rights and interests of others in exchange for tolerance for responsible gun ownership from people who otherwise don't care.

BB: ++10++

 

[vt_shooter]

The other side is playing us like a fiddle. Virginia's rulers played their first card by saying they're going to ban and confiscate an entire class of firearms, and they got the expected reaction. Then they played their 2nd card, and said "okay we will allow the people who currently own that class of firearms to keep them, but henceforth no one else can have them". People will be so happy that they don't have an actual crisis on their hands with regards to actually fighting their own government that they’ll acquiesce and not object substantially when the State bans future purchases of that class of firearm. The other side is patient, and they'll slowly dry-up firearm ownership just as they're doing in MA, CT, NJ, NY, CA, et el.

 

[ladder13]

I hear the calls for compromise and civility coming down that one way street.

 

[Steve K]

The other side is playing us like a fiddle. Virginia's rulers played their first card by saying they're going to ban and confiscate an entire class of firearms, and they got the expected reaction. Then they played their 2nd card, and said "okay we will allow the people who currently own that class of firearms to keep them, but henceforth no one else can have them". People will be so happy that they don't have an actual crisis on their hands with regards to actually fighting their own government that they’ll acquiesce and not object substantially when the State bans future purchases of that class of firearm. The other side is patient, and they'll slowly dry-up firearm ownership just as they're doing in MA, CT, NJ, NY, CA, et el.

This is a typical negotiations tactic, but I don't think it will work. I believe most people see this trick and will not fall for it. The VCDL has been adamant about not giving into this deception. We will not bargain away the rights of future generations.

 

[BB57]

The other side is playing us like a fiddle. Virginia's rulers played their first card by saying they're going to ban and confiscate an entire class of firearms, and they got the expected reaction. Then they played their 2nd card, and said "okay we will allow the people who currently own that class of firearms to keep them, but henceforth no one else can have them". People will be so happy that they don't have an actual crisis on their hands with regards to actually fighting their own government that they’ll acquiesce and not object substantially when the State bans future purchases of that class of firearm. The other side is patient, and they'll slowly dry-up firearm ownership just as they're doing in MA, CT, NJ, NY, CA, et el.

That move is just a ruse to avoid the new law being viewed as a "taking" - depriving people of their property without compensation.

However, when a law grandfathers existing firearms but then bans any future sale or transfer of those firearms, it's still depriving the owners of those firearms the value of their firearms.

It's the difference between getting life tenancy of a house or farm, versus actually inheriting the house or farm.

If anyone is happy with that kind of compromise, it's because they either don't understand the difference or ar not very smart in the first place. Education becomes the key to ensure that that difference is pointed out.

 

[Jessie]

It’s not about the monetary value, believe me

 

[Old cop]

I’m hoping the TX church shooting will strengthen our position in VA. Over 98% of the jurisdictions here have declared themselves to be a 2A sanctuary.

 

[dockmurgw]

I’m hoping the TX church shooting will strengthen our position in VA. Over 98% of the jurisdictions here have declared themselves to be a 2A sanctuary.

To the gun control crowd, it will have the opposite affect. They will look at this as more proof of what they believe. What they refuse to do is ask why people are shooting up churches. To them, people with serious mental illness walking among us is called compassion, where the reality is institutionalized confinement is more compassionate than allowing this shooter to take two innocent lives and then being killed himself. Convince them of that, and a majority of these shootings and 2A arguments go away.

 

[Valmet]

That move is just a ruse to avoid the new law being viewed as a "taking" - depriving people of their property without compensation.

However, when a law grandfathers existing firearms but then bans any future sale or transfer of those firearms, it's still depriving the owners of those firearms the value of their firearms.

It's the difference between getting life tenancy of a house or farm, versus actually inheriting the house or farm.

If anyone is happy with that kind of compromise, it's because they either don't understand the difference or ar not very smart in the first place. Education becomes the key to ensure that that difference is pointed out.

It’s like anything else they do- swing for the fences and take the base hit. I don’t see SB-16 passing as way too many moderate/rural Dems want to keep their seats, however I do see some other GC bills passing (background checks, etc) here in Virginia, unfortunately...and the Dems will call it compromise.

 

[ladder13]

“Compromise”= they win, we lose. What exactly have they compromised? Not taking away guns completely?

 

[Watchdog]

This is a typical negotiations tactic, but I don't think it will work.

I'm not sure why anyone would think the word "negotiations" is applicable here. It just isn't a good comparison. The state legislature or individual representatives are under no obligation to negotiate the terms of a proposed piece of legislation with voters or anyone else other than the governor and other members of the legislature.

The VCDL has been adamant about not giving into this deception. We will not bargain away the rights of future generations.

This is a Constitutional issue, not some sort of labor-management dispute where union members sit down at a big table and negotiate a new contract. Legislators may negotiate among themselves, adding or subtracting parts of a bill, but they have no incentive to sit down with the general public and talk about it. They already have their jobs for the next few years.

I note that Erich Pratt of GOA and Phillip Van Cleave of the VCDL stated both of them would be willing to sit down with legislators and work out some sort of agreement on gun legislation. I'm sure they would. Why either of those gentlemen think legislators would have the slightest desire to sit down with either of them is beyond me. No doubt that sort of we're-doing-our-part-to-stand-up-for-our-members'-rights rhetoric sounds good to their members, but will anything come of it? I doubt it.

 

[stansdds]

I’m hoping the TX church shooting will strengthen our position in VA. Over 98% of the jurisdictions here have declared themselves to be a 2A sanctuary.

I would like to think that too. I would also like to be a multi-millionaire. I think the odds of me becoming a multi-millionaire by winning three consecutive Mega-Millions and Power Ball lotteries in January are far better than the odds of the left realizing the folly of their gun control schemes.

To the gun control crowd, it will have the opposite affect. They will look at this as more proof of what they believe. What they refuse to do is ask why people are shooting up churches. To them, people with serious mental illness walking among us is called compassion, where the reality is institutionalized confinement is more compassionate than allowing this shooter to take two innocent lives and then being killed himself. Convince them of that, and a majority of these shootings and 2A arguments go away.

I agree, but the left will never accept this reality.

 

[BB57]

To the gun control crowd, it will have the opposite affect. They will look at this as more proof of what they believe. What they refuse to do is ask why people are shooting up churches. To them, people with serious mental illness walking among us is called compassion, where the reality is institutionalized confinement is more compassionate than allowing this shooter to take two innocent lives and then being killed himself. Convince them of that, and a majority of these shootings and 2A arguments go away.

This is where it's important to frame the argument in terms people who worry about restricting the rights of the mentally ill can relate to.

This issue came up on my facebook feed - my wife has a lot of very liberal friends - in the form of an article claiming that mental illness was not the cause of mass shootings/

My response was to point out the actual percentage of mass shooters with a documented mental illness (25%) and the percentage of mass shooters that had psychological "stressors" prior to the shooting (62%, based on FBI data. I then also make the obvious suggestion that any one willing to commit a mass murder probably qualifies for a DSM-V diagnosis even if they've never formally received one - it is not normal human behavior.

I did agree with the article however, that liberals on the feed that mental illness itself was not a predictor of violence - pointing out the millions of people with some form of mental illness diagnosis who are not violent and do not commit crimes.

However I also pointed out that there are about 100,000,000 gun owners in the US, and about 300,000,000 million guns. I then did the math to show the percentage of gun owners and guns that were not involved in any kind of gun related homicide. There are roughly 15,500 murders or non negligent homicides per year in the US, and firearms are used in about 72% of them. That's 11,160 gun related murders. Even if each one was committed by a unique individual that means only 0.015% of gun owners will commit murder. And it means that gun control efforts are restricting the other 99.9845% of gun owners who will never commit a murder.

Then I compared the 25% of mass shooters have a DSM-diagnosis before the shoot, and 62% have a significant psychological stressor. I then asked whether it's fair to extend protection to people with mental illness to ensure they are not denied their rights, and not do the same for the 99.9845% of gun owners who also have posed no threat to anyone, when their rates of mass shootings are orders of magnitude lower.

I got agreement on that - from liberals.

 

[BC38]

This is where it's important to frame the argument in terms people who worry about restricting the rights of the mentally ill can relate to.

This issue came up on my facebook feed - my wife has a lot of very liberal friends - in the form of an article claiming that mental illness was not the cause of mass shootings/

My response was to point out the actual percentage of mass shooters with a documented mental illness (25%) and the percentage of mass shooters that had psychological "stressors" prior to the shooting (62%, based on FBI data. I then also make the obvious suggestion that any one willing to commit a mass murder probably qualifies for a DSM-V diagnosis even if they've never formally received one - it is not normal human behavior.

I did agree with the article however, that liberals on the feed that mental illness itself was not a predictor of violence - pointing out the millions of people with some form of mental illness diagnosis who are not violent and do not commit crimes.

However I also pointed out that there are about 100,000,000 gun owners in the US, and about 300,000,000 million guns. I then did the math to show the percentage of gun owners and guns that were not involved in any kind of gun related homicide. There are roughly 15,500 murders or non negligent homicides per year in the US, and firearms are used in about 72% of them. That's 11,160 gun related murders. Even if each one was committed by a unique individual that means only 0.015% of gun owners will commit murder. And it means that gun control efforts are restricting the other 99.9845% of gun owners who will never commit a murder.

Then I compared the 25% of mass shooters have a DSM-diagnosis before the shoot, and 62% have a significant psychological stressor. I then asked whether it's fair to extend protection to people with mental illness to ensure they are not denied their rights, and not do the same for the 99.9845% of gun owners who also have posed no threat to anyone, when their rates of mass shootings are orders of magnitude lower.

I got agreement on that - from liberals.

I love your approach and the way you present the facts.

Unfortunately stats, facts, and figures only work when talking to people who operate on logic.

For most on the left your arguments sound like Charlie Brown's mom
Whah-wah whah-wah... whah-wah-whah-whah-wah-wah-whah.

They are so caught up in their feelings and their emotionally charged arguments that logic goes right over their heads and facts loose all relevance.

Keep it up though, there are probably at least a few who still understand and can follow logical arguments. Not many, but at least a few.

 

[asilcot]

That move is just a ruse to avoid the new law being viewed as a "taking" - depriving people of their property without compensation.

However, when a law grandfathers existing firearms but then bans any future sale or transfer of those firearms, it's still depriving the owners of those firearms the value of their firearms.

It's the difference between getting life tenancy of a house or farm, versus actually inheriting the house or farm.

If anyone is happy with that kind of compromise, it's because they either don't understand the difference or ar not very smart in the first place. Education becomes the key to ensure that that difference is pointed out.

You both left out one important detail regarding grandfathered firearms:

“In this case, the governor’s assault weapons ban will include a grandfather clause for individuals who already own assault weapons, with the requirement they register their weapons before the end of a designated grace period,” Northam spokeswoman Alena Yarmosky said in a statement Monday evening. “Additional details on this and all other bills will be announced prior to the start of the upcoming session.”

Translation: We need a list of these guns so we will know exactly what we need to confiscate.

 

[BC38]

You both left out one important detail regarding grandfathered firearms:

“In this case, the governor’s assault weapons ban will include a grandfather clause for individuals who already own assault weapons, with the requirement they register their weapons before the end of a designated grace period,” Northam spokeswoman Alena Yarmosky said in a statement Monday evening. “Additional details on this and all other bills will be announced prior to the start of the upcoming session.”

Translation: We need a list of these guns so we will know exactly what we need to confiscate.

...and where to go to get them and who we'll be taking them from...

 

[stansdds]

Yep, a registration scheme, very helpful when it comes time to confiscate.

 

[ladder13]

You both left out one important detail regarding grandfathered firearms:

“In this case, the governor’s assault weapons ban will include a grandfather clause for individuals who already own assault weapons, with the requirement they register their weapons before the end of a designated grace period,” Northam spokeswoman Alena Yarmosky said in a statement Monday evening. “Additional details on this and all other bills will be announced prior to the start of the upcoming session.”

Translation: We need a list of these guns so we will know exactly what we need to confiscate.

They did that in NY without much success, by all accounts 4-5% of all “assault weapons” were registered. The Gov never touts that.

 

[billwill]

Nobody anywhere ever said they were going to ignore gangbangers with sawed off shotguns (or any other weapons for that matter).

This is about not enforcing overbearing, unconstitutional, anti-2nd Amendment laws against otherwise law-abiding citizens.

Personally I applaud every sheriff in every county across the nation who takes that pledge. If cities and counties can offer "sanctuary" to illegal aliens, and protect them from ICE, then our local sheriffs can likewise offer sanctuary to our citizens and their 2nd Amendment rights.

Like Like Like

 

[biku324]

Virginians should have beaten this at the ballot box. Now the recourse is to beat it in court. Save the money and time and effort for that.

No one wants to hear this, but the courts are NOT the place to change laws - it's your legislature. At least you have some way to work at change by getting involved in your state & local party (whichever) at the grassroots, electing rational legislators, then pressing them to repeal irrational, outdated, or offensive laws. That is, however, an 'effort,' meaning folks will need to get off their posteriors and engage with the process rather than just complaining about it.

It seems odd to he against judicial activism, yet for it when it suits one's purpose.

This opinion is worth what you paid for it.