Virginia declares state of emergency over 2nd amendment rally at the capitol

[enki]

@Samm

So there we are, stalemated.

I guess my guess was right. No proof.

[Samm]

@enki

@Samm

So there we are, stalemated.

I guess my guess was right. No proof.

Yep. You haven’t proved a thing.

[enki]

@Samm

@enki

@Samm

So there we are, stalemated.

I guess my guess was right. No proof.

Yep. You haven’t proved a thing.

I never attempted to prove anything. You made a statement.

@Samm

If the Virginia governor had not made an issue of guns at the protest, those three wouldn’t have even heard about it

I guessed you had no proof of this statement. It appears you don’t. Without proof the statement implying the governor being partly responsible for the threat lacks credibility.

[johnrandolph]

@CanadianJudo

@Samm

@WCD9973

@Samm

If the Virginia governor had not made an issue of guns at the protest, those three wouldn’t have even heard about it.

The guy came in to the US in Aug. His friends got him. They purchased the weapons well before this week. Planned on coming and posted on social media for weeks.

The Gov 1st commetns / Actions on the rally came on 1/14 (Tuesday). He may have spoken about it Monday (1/13) as well.

So how does your timeline work?

So they planned to come before the event was even scheduled. Interesting.

so we are not blaming three people for making violent threats, we are blaming the Gov for being threatened.

Soybois

Bring on the boogaloo

[Axxowiz]

Governor Blackface vs the Neo-Nazis. Sounds like a low budget indie horror film.

[Steel-W0LF]

@WCD9973

If a Federal appeals court rules something constitutional and allows the law to stand, and the supreme court refuses to hear it.
What is the effect?
Are you aware of how the SC decides to hear cases? and why they Don’t hear other cases?

If a SC doesn’t hear a case - it means at least 6 judges did not think there was a reason for appeal and either thinks that lower court got it right, or there is no constitutional question.

Meaning - Every time a Fed court rules these law constitutional and the SC declines to hear it -the majority of the SC is saying its constitutional.

So question.

For 75ish years, does the above premise means we were not violating the rights of black people?

After all, it was either upheld or not taken up by the higher courts that whole time.

[markdido]

@WCD9973

If a Federal appeals court rules something constitutional and allows the law to stand, and the supreme court refuses to hear it.
What is the effect?
Are you aware of how the SC decides to hear cases? and why they Don’t hear other cases?

If a SC doesn’t hear a case - it means at least 6 judges did not think there was a reason for appeal and either thinks that lower court got it right, or there is no constitutional question.

Meaning - Every time a Fed court rules these law constitutional and the SC declines to hear it -the majority of the SC is saying its constitutional.

Incorrect.

I posted this earlier but you obviously didn’t see it:

[Matt Howell, Former federal prosecutor; criminal defense attorney; civil litigator

Answered Aug 26, 2015

As Clif Gilley states, when the Supreme Court denies review, the ruling from the lower court remains in effect and will govern the parties to that case. Thus, in the same-sex marriage cases that were denied certiorari in October 2014 (all of which affirmed the right to same-sex marriage), in each of those circuits, all states had to recognize same-sex marriage even before the Supreme Court decided the case in June 2015.

It is important to understand that the supreme court’s denial of review is not an endorsement of the lower court’s decision. It is simply a refusal to consider the issue for the time being but reserving the right to review the issue in the future.

[rp5x5]

@enki

@Samm

@enki

@Samm

So there we are, stalemated.

I guess my guess was right. No proof.

Yep. You haven’t proved a thing.

I never attempted to prove anything. You made a statement.

@Samm

If the Virginia governor had not made an issue of guns at the protest, those three wouldn’t have even heard about it

I guessed you had no proof of this statement. It appears you don’t. Without proof the statement implying the governor being partly responsible for the threat lacks credibility.

Maybe Gov “Babykiller” Blackface Northam needs Guns for something.

[CanadianJudo]

FBI has arrested 6 people so far who were going to attend this event and planned to murder counter protesters

[Steel-W0LF]

@CanadianJudo

FBI has arrested 6 people so far who were going to attend this event and planned to murder counter protesters

Good.

Have they started arresting Antifa yet?

[enki]

@rp5x5

@enki

@Samm

@enki

@Samm

So there we are, stalemated.

I guess my guess was right. No proof.

Yep. You haven’t proved a thing.

I never attempted to prove anything. You made a statement.

@Samm

If the Virginia governor had not made an issue of guns at the protest, those three wouldn’t have even heard about it

I guessed you had no proof of this statement. It appears you don’t. Without proof the statement implying the governor being partly responsible for the threat lacks credibility.

Maybe Gov “Babykiller” Blackface Northam needs Guns for something.

Maybe.

But now it seems you’re just throwing “maybe’s” out there for the sake of deflection without having any real cause.

[Samm]

As I said, stalemate.

[rp5x5]

@enki

@rp5x5

@enki

@Samm

@enki

@Samm

So there we are, stalemated.

I guess my guess was right. No proof.

Yep. You haven’t proved a thing.

I never attempted to prove anything. You made a statement.

@Samm

If the Virginia governor had not made an issue of guns at the protest, those three wouldn’t have even heard about it

I guessed you had no proof of this statement. It appears you don’t. Without proof the statement implying the governor being partly responsible for the threat lacks credibility.

Maybe Gov “Babykiller” Blackface Northam needs Guns for something.

Maybe.

But now it seems you’re just throwing “maybe’s” out there for the sake of deflection without having any real cause.

Or maybe I’m being sarcastic, when I know full well the entire thing is a setup.

[rp5x5]

@CanadianJudo

FBI has arrested 6 people so far who were going to attend this event and planned to murder counter protesters

You mean suspects.

[enki]

@Samm

As I said, stalemate.

Copy.

You’ve got no proof to back up your statement, and I’ve got no proof that you do or don’t have proof to back up you statement.

Fun game.

Carry on.

Edit to add:

Relevant

@Medicswife2002

Fairly common occurence; the (general) left drops unsupported opinions then refuses to back any of it up- sometimes while calling readers lazy for not ‘knowing’.

Cheers gang. It’s been fun.

[Samm]

@CanadianJudo

FBI has arrested 6 people so far who were going to attend this event and planned to murder counter protesters

Allegedly.

But I’m still not getting the “state of emergency.” It appears that the FBI have the situation well under control. Why is the Governor panicking?

[Samm]

You need to learn when to quit the game.

[enki]

Quitting is for alcoholics and gamblers.

[SixFoot]

@WuWei

We need two walls.

Damn right we do.

[Mountain_Soldier]

@WCD9973

@WuWei

If I have an “assault weapon” and he bans them, what happens to my “assault weapon”?

Serious question - do you know how to use google? The current assault weapons ban being debated (but not yet submitted - hence the lobby day) - Includes not only a grandfather clause - but a phase in period where you can even still get one.

For a issue you care deeply about you should read the bills being proposed.

I saw nothing of the sort in SB 16.