VA Gov declares state of emergency

[AProudLefty]

I’m referring to the nickname that his friends gave him and he responded to in college. When you have Coonman as your nickname in a yearbook IMO it’s fair game
Gov. Northam'''s VMI yearbook photo lists racial slur as a nickname

View attachment 67271986

Ah okay. Pretty odd for them to put that nickname in the yearbook.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)The person who instigated the violence is to blame for their actions.
2.) Even with these precautions taken if violence breaks out who would you blame?
3.) How do you know it will be enough?
4.) Or more importantly where is the line of being enough versus crossing into tyranny?
5.) The only way to guarantee no violence breaks out at the protest is to forbid anyone from protesting by Executive Order at the State Capital.

1.) correct. .for their ACTIONS. i didnt ask that question though. You seem to keep dodging, why? The rapist is responsible for their actions of course but what i am asking if there were people (responsible by job and duty to protect) that heard or were told and received credible threats rapes were going to happen and did nothing or didnt do what they could to try aand prevent t who would be at fault for that response?
2.) meaningless to my question you keep dodging. I would blame anybody for the question im asking you if the proper response were taken.
3.) also 100% meaningless and nothing i said or asked
4.) aaaaand another deflection and there is no tranny here
5.) didnt suggest thats whats needed either . . you seem to be doing quite a bit of dancing but its not working

ill simply ask my question AGAIN, try to HONESTYLT answer this time and not dishonesty dodge it.

If the state did nothing or not enough and major violence broke out who would be at fault and to blame for ignoring or not responding properly to multiple credible threats?

 

[Chillfolks]

1.) correct. .for their ACTIONS. i didnt ask that question though. You seem to keep dodging, why? The rapist is responsible for their actions of course but what i am asking if there were people (responsible by job and duty to protect) that heard or were told and received credible threats rapes were going to happen and did nothing or didnt do what they could to try aand prevent t who would be at fault for that response?

with the supposed threats allegedly against this protest increasing the police presence should be enough. In keeping with your example the step taken is forbidding anyone with a penis from showing up to protest because you claim you have heard there may be a rape

2.) meaningless to my question you keep dodging. I would blame anybody for the question im asking you if the proper response were taken.

Completely relevant because I say increasing the police presence is the proper response. You seem to think there needs to be more. So even if they taken the greater steps and violence breaks out who should be held responsible and how to you know what Gov Coonman did was enough?

3.) also 100% meaningless and nothing i said or asked[\quote]
You asked how did I know increased poilce presence would be enough. So to counter how do you know banning firearms will be enough. The honest answer is because we think it will be.

4.) aaaaand another deflection and there is no tranny here

different opinions

5.) didnt suggest thats whats needed either . . you seem to be doing quite a bit of dancing but its not working

Good a point we can agree on that solution is a step to far.

ill simply ask my question AGAIN, try to HONESTYLT answer this time and not dishonesty dodge it.

If the state did nothing or not enough and major violence broke out who would be at fault and to blame for ignoring or not responding properly to multiple credible threats?

I’ll try to answer slowly this time. Increasing the police presence above what you had previously planned would be the proper response. Full Stop end of discussion there is no further action required beyond that anything else is an excessive abuse of government power.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)with the supposed threats allegedly against this protest increasing the police presence should be enough. In keeping with your example the step taken is forbidding anyone with a penis from showing up to protest because you claim you have heard there may be a rape

Completely relevant because I say increasing the police presence is the proper response. You seem to think there needs to be more. So even if they taken the greater steps and violence breaks out who should be held responsible and how to you know what Gov Coonman did was enough?

You asked how did I know increased poilce presence would be enough. So to counter how do you know banning firearms will be enough. The honest answer is because we think it will be.
different opinions

Good a point we can agree on that solution is a step to far.

2.) I’ll try to answer slowly this time.
3.) Increasing the police presence above what you had previously planned would be the proper response.
4.) Full Stop end of discussion there is no further action required beyond that
5.) anything else is an excessive abuse of government power.

1.) HOLY ****!!!!! LMAO how many dodges and deflections and strawman are you going to post. I told you it wont work. I mean its hilarious but just man up make a post based on honesty and integrity.

2.) you havent answer at all yet so lying wont change that fact
3.) again NOT an answer and based on what facts? how do you know that? the people in charge feel different. should they not do their job?
4.) nope its not the end because you still havent answer for reason now that are becoming VERY telling
5.) another deflection based on ZERO facts that doesnt answer.

so here we are again, still waiting for you to answer the question im asking you not fantasy ones

If the state did nothing or not enough and major violence broke out who would be at fault and to blame for ignoring or not responding properly to multiple credible threats?

opcorn2:

 

[Chillfolks]

1.) HOLY ****!!!!! LMAO how many dodges and deflections and strawman are you going to post. I told you it wont work. I mean its hilarious but just man up make a post based on honesty and integrity.

2.) you havent answer at all yet so lying wont change that fact
3.) again NOT an answer and based on what facts? how do you know that? the people in charge feel different. should they not do their job?
4.) nope its not the end because you still havent answer for reason now that are becoming VERY telling
5.) another deflection based on ZERO facts that doesnt answer.

so here we are again, still waiting for you to answer the question im asking you not fantasy ones

If the state did nothing or not enough and major violence broke out who would be at fault and to blame for ignoring or not responding properly to multiple credible threats?

opcorn2:

That’s our sticking point. I don’t think you’re right on that point. If you approach my answers from the point of you’re wrong on this then all you’re questions have been answered. If you’re not interested in looking at this from that angle then we will always disagree and you can call me a a liar and say I’m deflecting as much as you need to to feel better about yourself.

I’m willing to see it from your angle, if violence happens and they didn’t try to ban guns people would say Coonman didn’t do enough just as if violence happens with Coonman banning guns people will say he didn’t do enough because he didn’t (insert whatever). Banning firearms isn’t going to stop anyone looking to inflict violence, can you be honest and agree on that point? Banning firearms only will impact people who are not interested in causing violence to begin with and is unnecessary is my position. You disagree fine it is what it is.

 

[AGENT J]

That’s our sticking point. I don’t think you’re right on that point. If you approach my answers from the point of you’re wrong on this then all you’re questions have been answered. If you’re not interested in looking at this from that angle then we will always disagree and you can call me a a liar and say I’m deflecting as much as you need to to feel better about yourself.

I’m willing to see it from your angle, if violence happens and they didn’t try to ban guns people would say Coonman didn’t do enough just as if violence happens with Coonman banning guns people will say he didn’t do enough because he didn’t (insert whatever). Banning firearms isn’t going to stop anyone looking to inflict violence, can you be honest and agree on that point? Banning firearms only will impact people who are not interested in causing violence to begin with and is unnecessary is my position. You disagree fine it is what it is.

Another dodge and deflection!!!!! LMAO

there nothing for me to be right or wrong about its a simple question you keep high tailing from and its hilarious.

Ill aks you again and watch you delicious dodge and run again

If the state did nothing or not enough and major violence broke out who would be at fault and to blame for ignoring or not responding properly to multiple credible threats?

 

[Chillfolks]

Another dodge and deflection!!!!! LMAO

there nothing for me to be right or wrong about its a simple question you keep high tailing from and its hilarious.

Ill aks you again and watch you delicious dodge and run again

If the state did nothing or not enough and major violence broke out who would be at fault and to blame for ignoring or not responding properly to multiple credible threats?

We can get on this ride all day increasing the police presence would be doing something and enough. Those who commit the violence are to blame. Increasing the police presence is not ignoring and responding to multiple rumors.

 

[AGENT J]

We can get on this ride all day
1.) increasing the police presence would be doing something and enough.
2.)Those who commit the violence are to blame.
3.) Increasing the police presence is not ignoring and responding to multiple rumors.

I agree ill keep asking and watching you dodge all day . . wanna see you factual dodges??? why sure!!

1.) didnt ask you that, nor does it answer my question you keep running from. DODGE
2.) didnt ask you that, nor does it answer my question you keep running from. DODGE
3.) didnt say it was, nor does it answer my question you keep running from. DODGE

so here we are in the same spot :2wave:
If the state did nothing or not enough and major violence broke out who would be at fault and to blame for ignoring or not responding properly to multiple credible threats?

 

[justabubba]

This is like the governor closing I 95 because their might be an accident somewhere someday.

State grounds have been non gun free zones for decades without an incident. Suddenly there's an emergency.

What Northram doesn't want is a show of hands of those who disagree with him.

i don't believe he has any problems with a show of hands ... just so long as those hands do not contain any firearms

 

[justabubba]

There are very few assault style, whatever that means, weapons in civilian hands.

What the left calls assault style rifles or weapons are commonly owned semi auto loading firearms decked out with a couple hundred dollars worth of plastic parts.

if you do not know what assault style rifles/weapons are, then how in the hell are you able to speculate how many there are and in whose hands they are in?

Something SCOTUS has already ruled on.

Will some pro banner please explain how drilling a hole through a gun stock makes a firearm more lethal?

then your complaint is that you might be denied access to weapons with a hole in the stock

seems like a very minor complaint

 

[justabubba]

that pales in comparison to democrats and blacks with guns

the original gun controls on a state wide level were the Klan's aimed at freed blacks

the areas where the most blacks live-tend to have the most gun control-imposed by democrats. What group of people are those laws aimed at.
Democrats were just as supportive of the Mulford act as the GOP and Democrats, as well as a Republican, sponsored it

that was 50 years ago, right now, the ONLY party trying to disarm blacks is the democrat party

then we are agreed, under ronnie reagan the republicans used gun control legislation to disarm blacks

 

[Chillfolks]

I agree ill keep asking and watching you dodge all day . . wanna see you factual dodges??? why sure!!

1.) didnt ask you that, nor does it answer my question you keep running from. DODGE
2.) didnt ask you that, nor does it answer my question you keep running from. DODGE
3.) didnt say it was, nor does it answer my question you keep running from. DODGE

so here we are in the same spot :2wave:
If the state did nothing or not enough and major violence broke out who would be at fault and to blame for ignoring or not responding properly to multiple credible threats?

If it will shut you up I will lie and say the state is responsible for the actions of an individual and they hold no responsibility. Is that the answer you’re looking for?

 

[AGENT J]

If it will shut you up I will lie and say the state is responsible for the actions of an individual and they hold no responsibility. Is that the answer you’re looking for?

Aaaaaaaand another hilarious dodge!!!! LMAO
individuals? LMAO who asked you about actions about individuals? NOBODY wow the dishonesty and desperation in your posts knows know bonds! this keeps getting better and better


Maybe take a huge breath, bury your anger deep down and actually read my question and give us an answer based on honesty and integrity . . or continue melting down and dodging it furthering my entertainment . .

If the state did nothing or not enough and major violence broke out who would be at fault and to blame for ignoring or not responding properly to multiple credible threats?

 

[TurtleDude]

then we are agreed, under ronnie reagan the republicans used gun control legislation to disarm blacks

50 or so years ago ,both parties in california, used laws to prevent blacks from openly carrying arms in public. The last forty years, it has been the Democrats that have been pissing over the rights of lawful gun owners.

 

[Logician Man]

50 or so years ago ,both parties in california, used laws to prevent blacks from openly carrying arms in public. The last forty years, it has been the Democrats that have been pissing over the rights of lawful gun owners.

One would think that is much better than pissing 'on' the rights of lawful gun owners.

 

[TurtleDude]

One would think that is much better than pissing 'on' the rights of lawful gun owners.

that makes no sense

 

[Samwise]

is it times have changed or the color of the persons bearing arms?

Color? What do you mean?

 

[justabubba]

Color? What do you mean?

when it is blacks doing the arms bearing it has been republicans, such as ronnie reagan, who implemented gun control regulations to disarm them

 

[TurtleDude]

when it is blacks doing the arms bearing it has been republicans, such as ronnie reagan, who implemented gun control regulations to disarm them

you are pretending that the democrat run cities that pass gun bans like Chicago or DC were targeting white gun owners?

 

[Wayne Jr]

ludin also said that Northam would be a 1 term governor (VA Governors are restricted from immediate reelection so re-election wasn’t going to happen anyway), and that assault rifles are banned, then immediately contradicted himself, saying “you need federal permission to own one”, so what’re the chances that he knows the government’s definition of an assault rifle?

When you have to get a special permit just to own a 40+ year-old relic, and you can't ever buy a new one, it's banned.

 

[justabubba]

you are pretending that the democrat run cities that pass gun bans like Chicago or DC were targeting white gun owners?

i am not pretending anything
i am presenting the fact that a republican governor named ronald reagan disarmed backs using gun control legislation

to pretend the democrat governor of virginia is doing any different is hypocritical for stalwart republicans who dare criticize his actions

 

[TurtleDude]

i am not pretending anything
i am presenting the fact that a republican governor named ronald reagan disarmed backs using gun control legislation

to pretend the democrat governor of virginia is doing any different is hypocritical for stalwart republicans who dare criticize his actions

so in your mind, threatened confiscations, bans of ownership etc are the same as a bipartisan bill that prevented loaded guns openly carried? and its funny you have to go back 50+ years

 

[RaleBulgarian]

When you have to get a special permit just to own a 40+ year-old relic, and you can't ever buy a new one, it's banned.

ban
/ban/
verb
past tense: banned; past participle: banned
officially or legally prohibit.

Nope.

 

[Wayne Jr]

ban
/ban/
verb
past tense: banned; past participle: banned
officially or legally prohibit.

Nope.

And "prohibit" means 'to make impossible'. When you inflate the price out of reach for the avarage person, you made it impossible for the avarage person, aka prohibited, aka banned.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

And "prohibit" means 'to make impossible'. When you inflate the price out of reach for the avarage person, you made it impossible for the avarage person, aka prohibited, aka banned.

More nonsensical hyperbole.

I can’t afford a Bugatti Veyron

Or a super yacht.

Does that mean they’re also banned?


Of course not.