Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

On the other hand, Traver is a good choice if increasing the dysfunction of the agency is something you're in favor of. The consensus of ATF employees who've known and worked with/for him is that he's a "nice guy" but couldn't manage a McDonald's. Minimally competent: the Peter Principle in action.

Ahh Yes, LIke Napolitano and other fine choices

VBshooter wrote:THis is possibly part of the punishment for the past election losses,,,Obama ,no longer having a slam dunk majority and in danger of having his ass booted out for good in 2012 will still be able to use appointments and regualtion to screw with us.,...My question is where will our two "Pro Gun " Senators fall in the end,,, My bet is they kiss the exalted ones egotistical privelidged butt and approve...They haven't missed a anti gun appointment yet,,,,,,,

You mean those two guys who voted in favor of the Obama healthcare federalization program, knowing at the time that the states have exclusive and superior control under the Constitution of matters of public health, education, welfare and police power? (I know they knew, because I told 'em both.) And that the states' insurance commissioners will have the power to regulate the U.S. as an insurer in each state? (Since the U.S. is acting in a proprietary rather than ministerial capacity, it has no sovereign power in that area.) THOSE two guys?

I'm already looking for replacements for those guys, both of 'em.

user wrote:

VBshooter wrote:THis is possibly part of the punishment for the past election losses,,,Obama ,no longer having a slam dunk majority and in danger of having his ass booted out for good in 2012 will still be able to use appointments and regualtion to screw with us.,...My question is where will our two "Pro Gun " Senators fall in the end,,, My bet is they kiss the exalted ones egotistical privelidged butt and approve...They haven't missed a anti gun appointment yet,,,,,,,

You mean those two guys who voted in favor of the Obama healthcare federalization program, knowing at the time that the states have exclusive and superior control under the Constitution of matters of public health, education, welfare and police power? (I know they knew, because I told 'em both.) And that the states' insurance commissioners will have the power to regulate the U.S. as an insurer in each state? (Since the U.S. is acting in a proprietary rather than ministerial capacity, it has no sovereign power in that area.) THOSE two guys?

I'm already looking for replacements for those guys, both of 'em.

+1

Kreutz wrote:

zephyp wrote:I agree, however, we have to be careful to ensure the entire principle of the 2nd is emphasized...otherwise we find ourselves wrapped up in the dangerous notion (and associated laws) that guns are A-OK for self and home defense as long as they never leave your house and are kept disassembled and locked in a safe...

See, we can agree on what really matters. When I talk about about "non traditional groups", I mean people that have had historic problems with being the victims of criminal gun violence and would need to protect themselves, in home and while out and about.

I'm talking about low income minority communities which have suffered at the hands of criminals long enough, homosexuals who might face violence for being gay, upper class yuppie types etc., there is a strong possibility these groups could be shown the value of responsible gun ownership and self-defense and would wildly broaden the base of gun owners and we all couldn't be steamrolled so easily.

Very rarely have I seen pro-gun literature directed at these groups, actually, almost never. I believe there is an organization called the "Pink Pistols" dedicated to getting gay people armed.

Being a good Liberal, I've actually addressed that. A couple of months ago, I wrote a piece on exactly this subject. Got posted not just here, but also in a VCDL VA-ALERT (thanks, Philip and Co!).

http://www.cmosnetworks.com/WhyWeNeedTo ... erals.html

Got a range of "interesting" responses, ranging from "what you talkin' about, boy?" to "quit calling all white people racist!" (I wasn't) to "they wanna come to our side, then I'll embrace 'em, otherwise, to hell with 'em".

I also got several responses saying, "hey, you've got a point there, we do need to branch out past the choir." This was gratifying, because it's true.

We do have, and historically have had, a problem with this. Too many of us (including myself years ago) see us as "Bubba Redneck", for the reasons I outline. That's got to change if we're to preserve our freedoms. We've got to more proactively get folks who aren't "conservatives" on our side of this issue.

CowboyT wrote: Too many of us (including myself years ago) see us as "Bubba Redneck", for the reasons I outline. That's got to change if we're to preserve our freedoms. We've got to more proactively get folks who aren't "conservatives" on our side of this issue.

+1

User Wrote;You mean those two guys who voted in favor of the Obama healthcare federalization program, knowing at the time that the states have exclusive and superior control under the Constitution of matters of public health, education, welfare and police power?

Yup those two dirt balls The ones that continually turn a deaf ear to the voters and do Obama's and the Party's bidding like the pair of brown nosing slug bait that they are....

+1 to both VBshooter and User. Neither one of them listens to us, and neither one of them will.

"Thank you for contacting me regarding this important issue."