Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Andrew Branca scores again.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2019/08/springfield-mo-walmart-rifle-body-armor-event-is-not-a-second-amendment-case/

Just because some conduct is lawful doesn’t mean it’s smart, and if one’s self-claimed mission is support of the Second Amendment, exercising that right in such a way that your conduct can be reasonably be expected to scare the heck out of normal people out in public—each of whom has exactly the same vote that you have—is politically idiotic.

My advice is that you exercise your Second Amendment rights responsibly, like adults who both demand that right and accept the responsibilities that come with it, rather than as self-serving adult-children who want rights without responsibility. Because if the second path is chosen, the others in society will strip that right away, without hesitation.

I agree with the general premise; we have to be responsible with our rights, if we mean to keep them.

However...

Going out in public, armed to the teeth, and clad in body armor, doesn't seem that unreasonable, these days. Other people are going out, and shooting people, oft times indiscriminately. Body armor, and the means to shoot back, seems like a logical response, to me.

There is a culture problem. Many, actually, but one of them is that modern society has been conditioned so that a small pistol, openly carried, is abnormal. Never mind that if you see a guy carrying openly, you've probably got several more guys in the vicinity who are carrying concealed; out of sight, out of mind.

I have no clue what was going on in that kids head. But, personally, were I on the jury, I wouldn't convict him based on what was in that write up. Also, it seems that the kid allowed himself to be held at gun point, despite the body armor. I'm sure that his defense will take note of that. Of course, I'm sure that more evidence will be presented in the trial, and I have no way of knowing what that evidence is.

To be fair, I also don't know that I'd be inclined to convict the other guy, either.

Lastly... I can't help but wonder... Was this a stunt designed to make gun owners look bad? Perhaps a mission to help some gun control laws pass?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Just because the media says it's an assault rifle doesn't mean it is.

Just because the media says it's body armor, doesn't mean it is.

Just because the media says it's an AK47 doesn't mean it is.

Have an open mind, decide for yourself, spend some time investigating news/media/politicians claims.

The lies are for a reason, not always because they are just stupid and uncaring about being factual. But quite often as an effort to push public opinion in certain directions.

They should report only facts. All the facts. If a prosecutor has facts and then picks and chooses between which ones to share with the defense attorney and ignores facts that could show the accused is innocent that is wrong and can get the accused a new trial or dismissal of charges. Why isn't the "news" held to similar standards? They report what they want and ignore what they want. They use words that don't mean what they should mean to further slant public opinion/beliefs. Gun Safety. Is not about gun safety. The other day I heard the number of 250 mass shootings in the US in the last 7 months. That was repeated several times. No reporter questioned it, they just let that person keep repeating it during the interview/public statement - and they loved it because even though it's a lie it supported their aims.

It's going to get worse before it gets better.

I looked it up one time. Seems there are half dozen definitions of public shootings. One might think that an agency charged with investigating these incidents would use the definition that the law making entity that charged them with investigating these events used. That number is around 17?

MDA and Mother Jones have their own definitions that appear to be in competition for high event count.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-polic ... tings.html

I was mistaken on Mother Jones...

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

As for this guy with the Russian sounding name, his actions "testing his Constitutional Rights" totally disregard his First Amendment restrictions...akin to yelling, "Fire" in a crowded theater. He is in need of a "time out" of circulation. And the news media needs to accurately report that fact.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]