Richmond - Large Public Forum on Guns- Sponsored by Times Dispatch

VAlitigator said:

I forgot about the guy who said we should ban all rifled weapons, so that one could only assassinate the president with a shotgun. WTF was THAT all about? I am wondering if he was deliberately being "out there" to make the anti's look bad.

Click to expand...

A member of VCU Students for conceal carry had a brilliant follow-up to the wingnut that wanted to ban rifles. He knew the exact number of all rifle deaths and pointed out that lightening claims many more lives than all rifles, which he added a lot of them were negligent and/for self-inflicted.

Why do you all torture yourselves.

If you want to argue with incoherent idiots, sit down at one of the bus stops in Richmond. It's easier to park!:uhoh:

MagiK_SacK said:

Was this a recorded event?

Click to expand...

Yes each event is recorded and the video is here.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/public-square/

Originally Posted by MagiK_SacK

Was this a recorded event?

Click to expand...

kenny said:

Yes each event is recorded and the video is here.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/public-square/

Click to expand...

The complete meeting (90 min.) was recorded and presented in 3 segments - just finished watching it all.

There are some people that want to feel safe and others that want to be safe - the latter requires personal action/responsibility. More and more the public is coming to understand the difference.

I'm quoted!*

Does that make me a celebrity? Can I charge for autographs? Anybody want to part of my entourage? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ts2U1mkfz4

stay safe.

* - Seriously, with all the emotionalism that took place, I am pleasantly surprised to see how rational and evenhanded the article is. I am also very sorry that those who generally fall into the anti-gun rights camp felt upset by the evenhandedness of the evening.

skidmark said:

I'm quoted!*

Does that make me a celebrity? Can I charge for autographs? Anybody want to part of my entourage? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ts2U1mkfz4

Click to expand...

You weren't pointing your finger, were you?:lol:

My objection was the democratic tone from the beginning with the introduction of the poll. Followed by the same tone by the antis. I don't personally care what other Virginians think or feel. This isn't a democracy where individual rights can be voted away.

Also I'm tired of blaming cars for DUIs. When will this "conversation" mature beyond the gun? When will the violence be addressed?

The problem is these people don't care about violence at all. If they did they might find the FBI statistics exciting. And they wouldn't suggest sending men with GUNS to my house to threaten violence upon me.

Their real problem is individualism. Their religion is Statism and they can't tolerate people who do not worship the state like they do.

richarcm said:

....

Also I'm tired of blaming cars for DUIs. When will this "conversation" mature beyond the gun? When will the violence be addressed?

The problem is these people don't care about violence at all....

Click to expand...

But if people cared about violence they would have to admit that it is a matter of personal responsibility - to control your own behavior and to hold accountable those who either cannot (the traditional definitiion of criminal insanity) or will not control their behavior. Alternatively, we could go back the days when people were possessed
by evil spirits and try all sorts of spectacular ways of driving those spirits out. If we succeeded and you lived, everybody celebrated. If we succeeded and you died anyhow it was still good that we drove out the evil spirits.

But in any case, the State would have no real way of imposing control over people, telling them what they can or cannot do. The State would be reduced to merely keeping people who could not control their own behavior from disturbing those of us who can. And there is just no way anybody/any system could become tyrannical doing that.

stay safe.

I watched the entire proceedings on line (while OCing, of course).

The demographic (alluded to by one speaker, the lady from NY?), closely mirrored what I've seen at gun shows, i.e. mostly male, many over 50, some women, very few minorities.

I sent an e-mail to the RTD editor asking if there'd be interest in running a (weekly) feature about publishing True Tales of Self Defense submitted by readers. My remarks were based on the lady who derided the "Guns Save Lives" stickers and claimed she's never heard of any such episodes, and because the man who responded to her claimed it was because the "...media doesn't report them...".

The black lady "..of a certain age..." (Skidmark) gets it. If you want to take back your neighborhood, you need to "Take back your neighborhood".

Who the hell was that jacka$$ that thinks that every cop should know what kind of firepower is in every home or car?

2a4all said:

--snip--
The black lady "..of a certain age..." (Skidmark) gets it. If you want to take back your neighborhood, you need to "Take back your neighborhood".

Click to expand...

I had an opportunity to talk to that lady for 5-6 minutes before she went in the TD building. Explained what we were doing there and why we believed in personal responsibility. She willing accepted the GSL sticker and said she wanted to get trained and buy a gun. Told her there were people inside that would help her - glad she is following through on that.

As for the scared Englishwoman .. someone should have told her to "**** off back to England if she doesn't like it here". She can take the Goddards with her too. [the censorship is my own, I'll leave it to the reader to imagine what this Englishman would have told her]

scouser said:

... I'll leave it to the reader to imagine what this Englishman would have told her]

Click to expand...

I know what the female equivalent of a wanker is, but it does not mean the same thing when said by a non-naturalized Amurican.

The true tragedy is that her life is ruled by emotion, and even sadder is that she apparently feels powerless to take charge of and direct her emotions and because she has categorically eliminated one set of responses she winds up unable to effectively channel her emotions into any sort of solution

stay safe.

Anyone who attended the meeting or watched the video should have at least come away with something. Just the body language of several people seen in the video spoke volumes. As many people said, there are many sides to this story.

If we are going to find fault with the emotional antis, then we must find fault with the emotional pros. Finding fault with something from the beginning can never be a good thing. We all need to listen more.

kenny said:

Anyone who attended the meeting or watched the video should have at least come away with something. Just the body language of several people seen in the video spoke volumes. As many people said, there are many sides to this story.

If we are going to find fault with the emotional antis, then we must find fault with the emotional pros. Finding fault with something from the beginning can never be a good thing. We all need to listen more.

Click to expand...

I came away with something...........just nothing new. Same old tired anti music, not even played in a different key.

As Skidmark mentioned earlier, compromise involves each side giving something. They are not looking to compromise - their goal is to take as much as possible, as often as possible.

Guess what? I'm not willing to compromise (trade away) either. My/our 2A rights are sacrosanct. So why do we do this? To contain/control the other side however we can AND to inform the fence sitters and the uniformed. IMO we are doing a very good job of educating the people.

I will listen to see if I hear anything new - meanwhile I will maintain and foster a pro-active stance.

My apology, sir, but "We all need to listen more" makes me expect to hear Kumbaya being sung in the background.

The "antis" offer nothing

kenny said:

Anyone who attended the meeting or watched the video should have at least come away with something. Just the body language of several people seen in the video spoke volumes. As many people said, there are many sides to this story.

If we are going to find fault with the emotional antis, then we must find fault with the emotional pros. Finding fault with something from the beginning can never be a good thing. We all need to listen more.

Click to expand...

Except for us to surrender our rights and our guns.

As Skid said, they are all take, and no compromise. The 1st speaker is a prime example. She demanded and demanded, but would not compromise on anything.

That is not worth listening to, but I did, all 3 parts, twice.

kenny said:

Anyone who attended the meeting or watched the video should have at least come away with something. Just the body language of several people seen in the video spoke volumes. As many people said, there are many sides to this story.

If we are going to find fault with the emotional antis, then we must find fault with the emotional pros. Finding fault with something from the beginning can never be a good thing. We all need to listen more.

Click to expand...

Grapeshot said:

I came away with something...........just nothing new. Same old tired anti music, not even played in a different key.

As Skidmark mentioned earlier, compromise involves each side giving something. They are not looking to compromise - their goal is to take as much as possible, as often as possible.

Guess what? I'm not willing to compromise (trade away) either. My/our 2A rights are sacrosanct. So why do we do this? To contain/control the other side however we can AND to inform the fence sitters and the uniformed. IMO we are doing a very good job of educating the people.

I will listen to see if I hear anything new - meanwhile I will maintain and foster a pro-active stance.

My apology, sir, but "We all need to listen more" makes me expect to hear Kumbaya being sung in the background.

Click to expand...

They play the same music, as do we. The harder, louder, faster they play, we respond in kind, like dueling banjos. They keep saying guns are dangerous, ban them; we keep saying that LACs aren't the problem, enforce existing laws. No one seems to be able come to agreement about how to deal with guns in the hands of those who perhaps shouldn't have them. IMHO, that would be proactive.

Since "they" are proposing new, more restrictive rules, we are forced to play defense. So far, in this quarter, we've managed to keep the ball at the line of scrimmage.

We do need to listen more, but to both sides.

skidmark said:

But if people cared about violence they would have to admit that it is a matter of personal responsibility - to control your own behavior and to hold accountable those who either cannot (the traditional definitiion of criminal insanity) or will not control their behavior. Alternatively, we could go back the days when people were possessed
by evil spirits and try all sorts of spectacular ways of driving those spirits out. If we succeeded and you lived, everybody celebrated. If we succeeded and you died anyhow it was still good that we drove out the evil spirits.

But in any case, the State would have no real way of imposing control over people, telling them what they can or cannot do. The State would be reduced to merely keeping people who could not control their own behavior from disturbing those of us who can. And there is just no way anybody/any system could become tyrannical doing that.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

...and.....we all keep reiterating this point....

over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and..... :banghead:

The whole liberal socialism movement is a lazy person’s way of getting out of ONE more thing. Entitlement is the new rule of the land. Social responsibility and education is gone by the wayside of the moronic idiots. Rights? What rights? The liberal media is hinted to the obsolescence of the Constitution. Hell, there’s even a book about it; and was in the news last night.

Public forums such as these really tick me off because it showcases the absolute idiocy of the anti’s. No logic, lies, PURE emotion and insults. They pick and pick and antagonize until the moment it becomes too much, and when you react, INSTANT VICTOMIZATION!! “See how they really are?”. They then stand there looking the part.

Or adjusting the press to make that bullying insensitive stereotype that they created, to make us all intelligent law abiding citizen who own guns and believe in the constitution as ignorant war mongering rednecks clearly evidenced in the audio adjustment made to the testimony of one of the parents from the Newtown incident.


OK, rant over! Thanks for representing!!

2a4all said:

.... They keep saying guns are dangerous, ban them; we keep saying that LACs aren't the problem, enforce existing laws. No one seems to be able come to agreement about how to deal with guns in the hands of those who perhaps shouldn't have them. IMHO, that would be proactive.

Since "they" are proposing new, more restrictive rules, we are forced to play defense. So far, in this quarter, we've managed to keep the ball at the line of scrimmage.

We do need to listen more, but to both sides.

Click to expand...

Working backwards - the reason we are forced to play defense is because we are never given the opportunity to run with the ball.

I have lost count of the suggestions, proposals, ideas, plans, and recommendations "our" side has put forward to deal with those who should not be allowed to obtain[SUP]1[/SUP] firearms or who illegally/improperly obtain[SUP]2[/SUP] firearms without imposing (notice I'm not drawing a line in the stand about infringing) on the rights and privileges of the law-abiding citizens. The best I have seen (nationally as well as locally) is for those that make it into the form of a bill being referred to a committee where they die for lack of attention if not outright killed.

As much as it may sound like a slogan rather than anything else, the plain truth is that "gun control" is not about guns and is all about control. "We" want, as much as possible, to be left alone until and unless we do something wrong. "They" want to control the means of misbehavior when it comes to this subject, yet give essentially free passes to so many other more dangerous and harmful inanimate objects that are misused more times in a day than guns are misused in a month.

stay safe.

[SUP]1[/SUP] - for purposes of this discussion we will agree that the current list of prohibitted persons is adequate and appropriate.

[SUP]2[/SUP] - for purposes of this discussion we agree to limit ourselves to actual avenues of illegally obtaining firearms, and not go searching for bogey men under the bed such as gun shows and Craigs List/ArmsList, etc. to add to and conflate the discussion.

I guess I am a better Poker player than most. I watch for the body language and it always speaks volumes. Some of you are just as bad as the anti's, y'all are and have been singing the same old song forever. Show me what "they" have taken away from us. You scream 2nd Amendment, but what about the other particularly the 1st?

I use to joke and tell people I was the most liberal republican they would ever meet. Now I just call myself apolitical. But as I get older and wiser I see myself becoming more of a constitutionalist. Even that defies my upbringing of being inclusive. I guess I can thank my political science professor from college for turning out this way. Many great and wise men founded this country. Many of us take that for granted.

I don't want to argue with you or the anti's; but please tell me this. Who was the idiot(s) that cam up with the computer based training so you could get your concealed carry permit? That has to be the worst idea that I have seen come down the pike in years.