OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
Glad you made it back in one piece without missing body parts.
Last edited:
VA Lobby Day Rally - Live Team Feed
- Thread starter LiveLife
- Start date
- Status
milemaker13
Member
I lived in Colorado springs for a little bit in my early 20s. We spent a lot of time riding motorcycles. We mostly wore jeans and tshirts- regular stuff like that. One of my friends showed up one day in a full racing suit and helmet. I have him a bunch of guff over it until finally he said something like " whatever dude. I like it so i'm wearing it".
And that's when it hit me. Right. He wants to wear it. Thats all. Ok.
And that's when it hit me. Right. He wants to wear it. Thats all. Ok.
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
When other people pay your bills they can have a say in what you wear.
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
JFrank
Member
DMN
Corpral_Agarn
Member
RIGHT. ON.
sequins
Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2014
- Messages
- 1,478
A lot of people telling us how to dress. I'm okay with guys in pony tails and guys in tactical gear. America is great because we DO NOT conform, we fly our personal flags high, and we do it with pride. Dress normal, act normal, be normal. Work 8 hours, Play 8 hours, Sleep 8 hours.
Well, the people of Virginia came to chew bubblegum and defend their rights and they ran out of bubblegum. The response to the rally from everyone I heard was a mix of "wow that was really something" to "right on", seeing people dressed that way acting normal and peaceful really challenges fence sitters potential assumptions that anyone with a gun is about to commit a crime, IMO.
BikerDoc, you did a good thing. So did everyone who attended. Keep up the fight! (And PS: Most of the service members I've seen look like soldiers whether they're in dress, BDUs, or sweat pants. If I put on BDU's I'm not misleading anyone, I'm just breaking up my profile)
Well, the people of Virginia came to chew bubblegum and defend their rights and they ran out of bubblegum. The response to the rally from everyone I heard was a mix of "wow that was really something" to "right on", seeing people dressed that way acting normal and peaceful really challenges fence sitters potential assumptions that anyone with a gun is about to commit a crime, IMO.
BikerDoc, you did a good thing. So did everyone who attended. Keep up the fight! (And PS: Most of the service members I've seen look like soldiers whether they're in dress, BDUs, or sweat pants. If I put on BDU's I'm not misleading anyone, I'm just breaking up my profile
)
D.B. Cooper
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2016
- Messages
- 4,396
Amen to that.
I was there. I chose to leave my plates, helmet/nods, rifle, etc in the truck. I was going to wear a suit (as I do most days), but didn't want to take a chance on someone throwing something at it and ruining it.
The 80-120k people i witnessed, with probably 1/3rd carrying loaded rifles, were clearly patriots and not the typical gun show crowd. Having experienced many hours safely protesting, without so much as being muzzle swept a single time (though I did hear one guy was having a helluva time trying to get inside a portapotty) i can say the effect it had was absolutely worth it and carrying a rifle was the right move. Next time, I'll wear it all.
don't believe the media's spin. they're lying about everything from it being racist, to the number of attendees.
The only thing embarrassing is that someone could spend 12 years on THR and still pine for sensible gun control. Obviously, having a login on a gun forum doesn't make you pro-gun.
that incident was 2 hours after the event was over.
no reliable sources. i attempted to count a number of times how many people were in an area and multiply by the number of areas and came up with 50-80k but the number i heard several times was 120k. I can promise you it wasn't 20k. I believe the number of people inside the fence was limited to 6000 or 7000. there's no way even 1 in 10 people through security inside the fence.
VCDL did make that request. It will be interesting to see if they change their tune next time. It was clearly the wrong call and there wasn't anything about people carrying rifles that was embarrassing.
as was pointed out earlier, i don't think there's any justification for that assumption.
it accomplishes several things. keep in mind, the experience of seeing something like a concert or football game on TV vs actually being there is wildly different.
- it demonstrates to the politicians that we are armed
- it demonstrates we are safe, and that gathering was by far the most polite i have ever been too. i can't tell you how many times i heard excuse me, thank you, etc
- if you could see the disparity of force between the protesters and police in person, it would be obvious. this point was most assuredly not missed by the LEO and agents present. and it's important because it will encourage them not to forsake their oaths because there's no question which side would win
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,282
What you described is how a percentage of the gun community might view seeing people dressed up while OCing long guns...
I was there, my opinion still stands, I don't believe everyone who is outside the hard core gun community bubble sees things how you all imagine they do, it's not sending the message you all think it's sending them, it's not gaining support for our cause that you all seem to think it has, and we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree.
Last edited:
Sistema1927
Member
I know that the term "militia" is a dirty word in many circles today, but in reality, the Militia showed up at Richmond this past Monday. Armed citizens, determined to maintain the security of the Republic.
Shanghai McCoy
Member
in virginia, more than a couple dozen house races were uncontested. there was no republican to even vote for on the ballot. the number i saw was only 40% of registered republicans even showed up to vote last november. this Rally (read the definition of the word for more insight) is going to accomplish a lot more by motivating gun owners to vote, than trying to convince fence sitters, who were already told we were nazis, white supremacists, racists, etc.
the event also provided clear evidence to fight those stereotypes of gun owners in several important ways. all those guys carrying loaded rifles were
-safe
-polite
-peaceable
-friendly with the cops
and just generally well behaved, to a man. (and woman, etc)
i hope the media publishes a picture of every single person at the rally. the more people see it, the more we will win.
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,282
My fear is that even if we regain the majority in the legislature, we still will not take back the governor's office thus any gun control that is enacted within this short period of time will be around for a while.
Corpral_Agarn
Member
I laughed when I saw this. Thought I'd share:
Corpral_Agarn
Member
AlexanderA
Member
The "constitutional militia" (for 2nd Amendment purposes) is essentially everybody. A self-selected subset is not "the militia." It's settled law that self-organized paramilitary groups can be outlawed. Whatever else we can say about those that showed up armed on Monday, they have no legal standing as representatives of anybody.
VA is staggered, executive officers such as the governor are elected in two years (2021) for four year terms and the state Senate has a four year term until 2023 and House of Delegates in 2021 (2 yr terms).
Corrected and clarified original post aka Alexander A. comments below.
Last edited:
In case anyone missed it bikerdoc was joking. That pic isn’t him. Bikerdocs pic is in his avatar.
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
dudes go look closely it is not me that is a mod from another forum, as you can see I'm thinner and better looking.
Corpral_Agarn
Member
Boy do I feel silly.dudes go look closely it is not me that is a mod from another forum, as you can see I'm thinner and better looking.
LOL
jwamplerusa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2017
- Messages
- 58
True, they may not have a legal standing as representatives of anybody. They are however members of the militia (depending on age and a number of other factors, including gender, interestingly).
"10 U.S. Code § 246.Militia: composition and classes
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
So, unless you're female and not in the national guard and so long as you are in the proper age range, you are in the unorganized militia. Those members of the unorganized militia showed up, were well regulated (behaved appropriately) and petitioned their government for redress of their grievances.
I would like to think all of those in the late 1700s who worked and sacrificed so much to bring our Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights to be, would be very proud of what occurred Monday in Richmond Virginia.
I find it incredibly disturbing that apparently many inside of the government's offices now see themselves as kings and noblemen, not servants of the people.
AlexanderA,
It is not settled law because the situation in Virginia has important 1st Amendment rights tied to it namely free speech, right to assemble peaceably, and freedom of association. Give me concrete examples, and I can give you case law citations where such a group may have government sanctions against it but the government does not have a broad based right to ban an organization engaged in lawful practices even it their activities "scare the horses." Gitlow, Schenk, Debs, and Whitney, are not regarded as good law anymore with a number of cases post war undermining their rationale. Same way as the Smith Act has been undermined. Effectively, the court has limited the "clear and present danger" by requiring actual imminent illegal activities proposed via speech plus concrete actions to further the illegal scheme or activity.
Right now, the government is shying away from their original claims in the Hasson case because much of their alleged actions furthering an illegal activity is constitutionally protected--thus the government is pretty much sticking with concrete illegal activities such as unlawfully possessing a silencer, being a drug user (Tramadol) and possessing firearms unlawfully, and possession of a controlled substance (Tramadol from what I can glean from court filings).
Laws aimed against a specific group are banned under bills of attainder and yes, they do have legal standing if their constitutional and statutory rights were violated as a group or as an individual.
The Supremes have looked upon disfavor about banning groups as such and generally require speech+actions furthering illegal activities to allow it. The decision in Brandenburg generally requires government to provide evidence of immediate intentions to further illegal actions not simply organizing for political reasons.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
