Virginia Prepper Tells Gov. To Stuff It

In no uncertain terms, Virginia Prepper tells the Governor that, no, they will not register their guns nor surrender their Second Amendment right to KEEP and bear arms. I would only add to that the point that the 2nd amendment is NOT about your right to murder Bambi. It specifically calls out the need for a well trained and practiced (“regulated” in the language of the day) militia (all males over 18) for military needs using military appropriate arms.

So the whole notion of “military style” meaning bad, is exactly wrong.

I think the Governor needs a reminder that the Virginia Guard is largely made of those folks whose guns he wishes to confiscate.

Subscribe to feed


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Political Current Events and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Virginia Prepper Tells Gov. To Stuff It

  1. E.M.Smith says:

    Their definition of “assault gun” is crazy. My pump shotgun qualifies as do seversl pistols.


    Saslaw’s legislation provides,

    It is unlawful for any person to import, sell, transfer, manufacture, purchase, possess, or transport an assault firearm.

    Otherwise law-abiding gun owners found in possession of an “assault firearm,” even one they purchased prior to the ban, could be convicted of a Class 6 felony. A Class 6 felony is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment.

    The legislation lays out several criteria by which a firearm would be defined as an “assault firearm.” This includes,

    A semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.
    A semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine that has one of the following characteristics:
    (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the rifle; (iii) a thumbhole stock; (iv) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (v) a bayonet mount; (vi) a grenade launcher; (vii) a flare launcher; (viii) a silencer; (ix) a flash suppressor; (x) a muzzle brake; (xi) a muzzle compensator; (xii) a threaded barrel… or (xiii) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (xii)

    A semi-automatic centerfire pistol with a fixed magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds.
    A semi-automatic centerfire pistol with a detachable magazine that has one of the following characteristics:
    (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a thumbhole stock; (iii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (iv) the capacity to accept a magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; (v) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the pistol with the non-trigger hand without being burned; (vi) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; (vii) a threaded barrel… or (viii) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (vii);

    A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
    A semi-automatic shotgun with one of the following characteristics:
    (i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a thumbhole stock, (iii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the shotgun, (iv) the ability to accept a detachable magazine, (v) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of seven rounds, or (vi) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (v).

    With this definition, SB 16 would outlaw America’s most popular rifle, the AR-15, along with countless other rifles, pistols, and shotguns that Virginians use for hunting, target shooting, and self-defense.

    A knowledgeable firearms owner will take a look at the ridiculous definition and realize that such ham-handed legislation must be born out of petty vindictiveness or a complete ignorance of firearm technology, as there is no logical public safety rationale.

    For example, the legislation is so broad that it would ban hunting guns like the Mossberg 935 Turkey shotgun for its “pistol grip.”

    The ban would prohibit the possession of guns like this Model SP-10 Magnum Thumbhole Camo due to its thumbhole stock.

    The ban would also capture guns such as this version of the Browning BAR Mark II Safari hunting rifle, as it has a detachable box magazine and a muzzle brake.

    Moreover, the “any characteristic of like kind” language that appears after each list of prohibited features introduces an unacceptable vagueness into the definition of what does or does not constitute an “assault firearm.” Law-abiding gun owners would be forced to prophesy just how a court might interpret those unclear provisions.

    As bad and senseless as the prohibition on certain firearms is, the proposed ban on firearm parts truly shows how Michael Bloomberg is cashing in on his political investment.

    The legislation provides,

    “Assault firearm” includes any part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert, modify, or otherwise alter a firearm into an assault firearm, or any combination of parts that may be readily assembled into an assault firearm.

    This passage would appear to make all of the firearm parts listed under the various feature tests in and of themselves “assault firearms” and therefore prohibited. As the individual part is treated as an “assault firearm,” possession of such a part would be punishable in the same manner as a prohibited firearm, as a Class 6 felony.

    Many firearms are modular. For instance, the same muzzle brake or flash suppressor could be used to turn a semi-automatic firearm into an “assault firearm” under the bill’s definition, or it could be used by a hunter or precision rifle shooter on their bolt-action rifle.

    In recent years the popularity of the AR-15 platform has led to the adoption of AR-15 parts in other types of firearms. An example of this trend is the Ruger Precision Rimfire rifle. The firearm is a bolt-action rimfire rifle that accepts an AR-15 pistol grip. As the pistol grip part is a prohibited feature on a semi-automatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and is designed for use on a prohibited AR-15, the mere grip itself could be banned under this legislation.

    SB 16 also bans the importation, sale, and transfer of standard capacity firearm magazines that are designed to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Many handguns commonly-owned by law-abiding citizens for concealed carry come standard with magazines that would be banned. Otherwise law-abiding gun owners who violate the magazine provision could be found guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A Class 1 misdemeanor is punishable by up to a year in jail.


  2. John Robertson says:

    It takes a Non Tool User to focus on banning the tool,rather than enforcing the laws governing human behaviour.
    For their kind of humans are pure and wonderful,just tempted into acts of violence by evil tools.
    Of course their definition of Assault Rifle is crazy,intentionally so.
    There is no such weapon,the tool described by these Progressive comrades from the bureaus,political parties and their media hencemen,is beyond our technology.
    A weapon that is self directing,self loading and self firing?
    Gee I wish my tools could be like that.

    They prattle on about “making us safe” while ignoring the obvious facts,most all “successful butchery” by idiots with guns,have been committed in “gun free zones”,where legislation passed by Progressive Comrades just like themselves,has made it a criminal offence to have the means to defend yourself.
    here in Canada they are about to attempt a tool grab once again,it may be the touchstone for division of the country,we just “celebrated the 30th anniversary of a spree killer butchering 14 young women..after 30 years not one act of politician has done a single thing that would prevent a repeat..
    After 30 years and endless attacks on law abiding gun owners,the only thing that might have saved those young women,is still illegal.
    Concealed Carry and the training to use a hand gun in self defence.
    And our glorious media still gloss over the fact that the killer was another Son of the Desert Pedophile.
    As for the politicians,they swore an oath,which such “laws” blatantly breech.
    Would ending on a rope, be a suitably ironic fate for such criminals?

  3. Hifast says:

    In August 1776, having observed the outrageous actions of his Continental Army soldiers displaying disorderly and unsoldierly behavior on the eve of the Battle of Long Island, General George Washington formally admonished their commander, Major General Israel Putnam:

    “All irregularities must cease at once. The distinction between a well-regulated army and a mob is the good order and discipline of the first and the licentious and disorderly behavior of the latter.”
    –General George Washington (1776, by David McCullough)

    In this context, the Second Amendment phrase, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State…” means that the security of a free state depends on all able-bodied men 17 to 45 years of age being well-regulated in soldier skills and demeanor.

    The term applies to the men themselves—not their tools and appurtenances of warfare—so that these members of the militia become and remain disciplined and orderly in their preparation for war.

  4. Taz says:

    What will the police or national guard do if citizen after citizen just refuses to surrender their weapons and resists individually? How quickly could this get out of hand if these state enforcers leave a string of Wacos in their wake?

    This is pure force. You aren’t gonna change any minds here. And when you use force – you take your chances. Those risks are real and likely far more expensive than anyone on either side imagines. It WON”T end quickly….and the price will be very high.

  5. E.M.Smith says:

    So Gov. is threatening to activate the Guard. …

    Could Trump then Nationalize the Guard and tell them to stand down? Or even tell them to defend fhe 2nd Amendment?

  6. philjourdan says:

    Ahm, Dickie (Saslaw). He is just an idiot who now is in the majority (the proof that Darwin no longer applies). Just wait until Joey (Morrisey) decides to hold up an AK47 in the senate chamber with his finger on the trigger. (He who claimed he did not rape a 17 year old girl, and then his child was born 7 months later). Add to the blackface Northam (who refused to touch a black man less the blackness rub off), Raper Fairfax, and blackface Harrington (who decides which laws to enforce, the legislature be damned!).

    Yep, Virginia politics are very representative of the national democrats. Proximity does breed similarities

  7. Larry Ledwick says:

    Under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) the officers of the National Guard have an obligation to refuse to obey an illegal order.

    However it is done at considerable personal risk if the command structure does not agree the order was clearly illegal.

    In this case the large numbers of Sheriffs asserting that they will not enforce such orders to seize weapons would add considerable weight to an officers determination not to obey. But there is risk that the commander is simply relieved of his command and replaced by someone more willing to follow the order.

    If it ever comes to that it will be a significant turning point that we can only speculate how it goes. It could be like the Russians who refused to follow orders at the fall of the Soviet Union which then sided with the civil population.

    The problem with the President ordering the National guard to refuse gets even more complicated.

    I am sure a lot of military officers and lawyers are pondering these same questions.

    It is possible that like the shots fired at Lexington, it could escalate into a crossing of the Rubicon that cannot be undone. If it goes that far it could result in the same response that happened at Lexington and Concord with civilian militia coming out of the wood work and forcing a tense withdrawal under duress or even a retreat under fire.

    It is a contest best not played, but I am not sure the Democrats understand that the result might be very similar to what happened to Mussolini and his wife at the end of the WWII.

    Back in 1994 there was a survey taken as part of a thesis program that sheds some light on this.

    This is a long read but covers some of the issues involved and history

    Click to access R42659.pdf

    This is a bit out of date as since this came out the Supreme Court has found that the 2nd amendment is an individual right not a collective right.
    (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court …. The court then held that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to keep and bear arms”,)

  8. E.M.Smith says:

    @Larry L:

    Yes, best not played….

    But I do find myself asking: What part of “keep” was unclear?

    So 1 in 4 would… means 3 in 4 would not. Now how many of the gun owners will stand firm?

    “The Virginia Army National Guard is composed of approximately 7500 soldiers ”

    I think there’s a lot more than 7500, and certainly more than 1900, armed and cranky civilians. Which I think was the point of the 2nd…

  9. Larry Ledwick says:

    Exactly right – like nuclear deterrence, the intent is to make it clear you don’t want to go there in the first place, and make it obvious it would be so costly it would be ruinous to even try.

    The key here is does the other side think your serious? If yes, the deterrence works, if not, they will blunder into it in spite of the obvious costs, thinking they are smarter than the hicks.

    As Thomas Jefferson pointed out periodically you have to demonstrate an “earnest of intent” to make the deference believable. “The tree of liberty must be watered periodically”

    Click to access An%20Earnest%20of%20Intent.pdf

    I read this story in analog magazine I believe and it has always stuck with me – that threats have value only as long as the opposition believes you might actually perform the threatened action. As soon as they are convinced you will not you have to provide an “earnest of intent” that you are not bluffing.

    The Bundy Ranch stand off was such a down payment – if Virginia insists on going there the citizens of Virginia will have to make a choice about where they draw the line.

  10. p.g.sharrow says:

    For those that didn’t pay attention, during the first Clinton Administration we were within hours of a real shooting civil war. Militia men from around the country were loading their pickup trucks to go to the aid of the Weavers when Congressmen convinced the “Justice Department” to stand down in that affair and the State Attorney General began bring charges against the Government gunmen for murder. This not long after the Waco Massacre. Sometime later the administration ran a war game in the Bay area to test taking control under Martial Law and found that “the Military would not be dependable” for such a purpose.
    No government security force can prevail against 3 percent of the population that is armed and willing to fight against them. No matter their threats, there are not enough government people that are willing to die to suppress the people that insist that they will die before they surrender their Right to be armed. Most of those that are a part of the governments security forces take their oath to defend the Constitution seriously. Local laws do not prevail over the Constitution The Prime Law of America.

  11. p.g.sharrow says:

    A well ordered Militia is a private organization of citizens. In the old days the Volunteer Fire, Sheriff”s Posse, Defense force. Self organized, trained and funded to protect the local citizens from ALL enemies, a part of the local body politic. There are over 10 million, trained in war, American patriots that will defend the Constitution.

  12. E.M.Smith says:

    @Larry L:

    It need not be only the Virginians who take a stand.

    As P.G. pointed out, others have prepared to converge before.

    In another video, the guy pointed out January 20, 2020, a protest at {somewhere… the Capitol where lawmakers are set to pass these laws}… nothing would prevent gun owners from around the country adding to the protest. Afterall, this proposed law would also criminalize ME transiting Virginia with my lawful firearm. Simple “possession” becomes criminal. Seems to me I have a dog in this fight too…

    Wonder if if might wake them up to find a few hundred thousand extra cars on their street trying to find a place to park…

  13. Larry Ledwick says:

    Never said it was only Virginians who had a stake in this only, that “right now” they are on the front lines. Local push back has occurred all over the country. Here in Colorado when they passed the high capacity magazine ban many of the County Sheriffs came right out and said they had no intention of enforcing the law because it was unenforceable.

    About the same time counties in north east Colorado seriously discussed seceding from Colorado and forming a new state.

    This battle has been going on for decades and slowly escalating because the government weasels fail to understand what is going on.

    Randy Weaver Ruby Ridge stand off near Naples, Idaho in 1992
    Montana Freemen 81-Day Standoff 1996 (these were sovereign citizen cranks engaged in fraud and other crimes so I have no sympathy for them but they are a symptom of the governments over reach)
    Cliven Bundy March 2014 dispute over historic free grazing rights and efforts to drive him off the lands possibly driven by a scam being run by Senator Harry Reid.

    Malheur National Wildlife Refuge stand off in February of 2016
    This was related to arson charges filed related to a fire 2001 Hardie-Hammond Fire near Steens Mountain which depending on the sources was a preventative fire to burn off invasive species that got out of control or a fire set to conceal a crime (deer poaching).

    Etc. Unfortunately these sorts of stand offs are not pure protests against an over reaching government and a clearly defined specific event, they are often tainted by the involvement of groups like the Sovereign Citizen advocates which are basically anarchists just like Antifa and abhor all government. Or nut job tax protesters etc.

    The left of course seizes on those tainted participants as representative of the entirety of those who want to stop the federal government from over reaching its authority and abusing its power in the west and to resist out of control Federal bureaucrats.

  14. E.M.Smith says:

    @Larry L:

    Sorry, didn’t mean to imply you had been limiting, I was just using your comment as a jumping off point for my statement…

    I’m just musing about the potentials raised by, oh, announcing on every possible media and via email chains, that there’s a Big Get Together in Virginia at the Capitol Jan. 19 – 20 and maybe longer for a “gathering of friends, music, and picnic”… and inviting the entire gun owning nation…

    Maybe we could call it “gun-Stock” ;-) (For “people of a certain age”…)

    Say most folks would only be willing to drive 1/4 of the nation to get there (on average) so you are at 75,000,000. Now cut it down to only adults, so maybe 40,000,000. Then say only 1 in 100 is both a gun owner and motivated, so 400,000 and maybe only 2/3 of them actually make it.

    Might be interesting to watch the City deal with 1/4 Million cars all looking for a place to park…

    Just Sayin’…

    I was planning to head to Chicago then Florida late January,.. maybe I can work in a visit to the “historic sites in Virginia” ;-)

  15. Larry Ledwick says:

    Gun stock – I like that or the other option is:

    “We Could Stock”

  16. Larry Ledwick says:

    A fun little video I found this morning discussing the historical background to the inclusion of the second amendment in the Constitution. It covers the deep historical background regarding the culture of independence that developed in America.

    It is about 43 minutes long and is aimed at the modern young web savy person. So far very well done, (part way through it) a bit of modern web jargon including uninhibited language.

  17. E.M.Smith says:

    Looks like The Call has already started 2 weeks ago:

    They are going for the organized controlled approach with busses and such. I’m still rather partial to the “Y’all Come” self elaborating adaptive process with each person “bulked up” by the size of their vehicle on the streets… but hey, their party… though he does say “you can still just come” :-)

    Don’t know that I’ll make it as my schedule then is already complex, but “We’ll see”…

  18. p.g.sharrow says:

    Came across this gem about the C.I.A.,

    Pompeo spoke this past April at Texas A&M University, recalling the sins he witnessed when he oversaw the CIA. “I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole,” Pompeo chuckled in the clip. “We had entire training courses.”
    Pompeo neglected to say they have operations manuals on these things as well as on using crime organizations to further their aims. All done under top security! under need to know, and you don’t need to know no matter what your position might be. …pg

  19. E.M.Smith says:


    That’s my biggest fear. That the TLAs of the world have decided THEY are in charge, and screw everyone else.

    This needs cleaning up, but can it be done? That’s the big question Trump is trying to answer.

    Oh, and Epstein did not kill himself.


    FWIW, at one time I had the C.I.A. job application in hand. Filled out. Decided not to send it in for the simple reason I decided I did not want to be 2nd and 3rd guessing everything the rest of my life. Later, after 9-11, I sent them a resume. But then they were so flooded with offers I was not of enough interest. So it isn’t like I’m dead set against them. I’d become a C.I.A. agent in a moment if they asked me and I felt it was for a genuine good cause. I sent them a letter about my creation of “Smith’s Hammer”, and I know it has saved a lot of lives. So “they know me”. (As if dating the daughter of the Director of Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Laboratory when it was deep into nuke bomb making didn’t put me on their radar… Say hi to Stella for me guys!) And no, I’ll not explain “Smith’s Hammer”. A few key spooks in the world will “get it” and everyone else doesn’t have a need to know.

  20. p.g.sharrow says:

    The flow of information is key to bring light into the dark places where the deep/dark state dwells. They are few but we are Legion. The Internet is our tool to spread light into the dark places where they dwell and hide their machinations. ” The new age Dawns with a net that covers the world”
    The “C.I.A.” was a tool of the GEBs. but it has grown sloppy with hubris and the Peter Principle, now they can no longer hide from information that can spread at the speed of light to all corners of the globe.
    Your little cafe. Coffee Klach, is a small;part of this Internet of information and we know that important people listen to this flow of information that is outside of the management of information by GEBs that is fed to National leadership.
    Trump doesn’t rely on the official channels for all of his information, this makes him dangerous to their World POV because of his independent actions based on his broader knowledge base. When the Dark State was few and weak they were smart and careful but as they have grown in numbers and power, they grow careless and make too many mistakes in their greed for wealth and power.

    I am comfortable that in time this problem will be solved because it is time for that to take place. The world of men is beginning to see through the lies and is tired of the cost.
    We live in interesting times. 2020

Comments are closed.