Fredericksburg man convicted of brandishing

[color of law]

Getting spread more. Expand and take a moment and enjoy a view of the Virginia State Capitol. Then click the link to read the entire article. Or just read the expanded below to get a taste to decide to finish reading. It will likely answer some questions that have been posted around here too.

Nemo

https://freebeacon.com/issues/like-...declare-themselves-2nd-amendment-sanctuaries/

But Van Cleave says gun groups deserve only modest credit for the quickly spreading movement.

"It's mostly grassroots," he said. "Localities have passed this that weren't even on our radar. It's like a grass fire that the grassroots had started and then we went in and threw some more gasoline and a match on it to make it burn even brighter."

Another example of the grassroots doing the job of the gun groups which are suppose to be doing.

 

[color of law]

No, it dos not, as it is prohibited by law from doing so. However, VCDL has a PAC (VCDL-PAC) which accepts contributions and donates to candidates/campaigns.

You may want to rethink your statement.
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND

COMMITTEE DETAILS FOR COMMITTEE ID C00053553

 

[color of law]

Almost 900 words to insult me and specifically avoid answering the question.

Let's try again.

Where would we be today if not for the NRA?

Do you actually hold the position that because of early involvement of the NRA in some of those cases you mention that the state of our right to keep and bear arms would be better RIGHT NOW if the NRA had never existed?

The rise of the progressive movement was in full swing during the early 1900s. Who, specifically, would have held those gun-hating forces in check better than the NRA? If there were better groups, why didn't THEY save us from these terrible court cases? If you can't identify better groups, then how can you ignore the fact that those gun-hating forces would have operated unchecked until all gun rights were destroyed?

TFred

Apparently, you have a reading comprehension issue. I said: “We would not have the Gun Control Act of 1968 if the NRA would not have supported it. As a matter of fact, the NRA co-authored the gun control legislation.”

Then you asked: “Where would we be today if not for the NRA?” claiming I insulted you.

Seriously, if the NRA had vigorously defended the second amendment instead of supporting government gun control, we wouldn’t be where we are today.

Then you state: “Do you actually hold the position that because of early involvement of the NRA in some of those cases you mention that the state of our right to keep and bear arms would be better RIGHT NOW if the NRA had never existed?” Where did you get the idea that I believe the NRA should never exist? I never said that nor did I ever imply it. We just went through a battle with the NRA because of their support for Red Flag laws.

I think you need to re-read the NRA’s history.

Have a nice day.

 

[solus]

Simple intellect and understanding, combined with a basic education would permit you to figure it out all by yourself.

Nemo

I did not make that presumption. Seems your question and indicated lack of understanding prove the point of your blamed presumption.

Nemo

truly...??

seems this sender's message was received loud and clear as you engage in the defensive "not me" dance...