VCDL: Sarvis "Very Pro-Gun" While Cuccinelli Only "So-So"

[ShotgunBlast]

VCDL candidate survey is out and not surprisingly, Libertarian nominee Robert Sarvis gets a great rating from the VCDL while Cuccinelli gets average marks. I've asked Sarvis about this personally and he believes passionately in ALL of our constitutional rights. It would be interesting to see what dinged Cuccinelli on his survey.

http://vcdl.org/Candidates_2013_General

[FiremanBob]

Will VCDL release the actual surveys with answers from each of the candidates? If not, why not?

[trailrunner]

That's interesting, because I've checked Sarvis's website a few times, including yesterday, and it didn't say anything about guns.

As of today, he now has a new section on his views of gun rights, found here:

http://www.robertsarvis.com/guns

I'm not that impressed. The first paragraphs says that gun laws so far haven't done much in practice to reduce crime and wind up burdening the law-abiding citizen. No argument with that, I guess, but he doesn't say anything about fundamental rights. So far, pretty weak.

The second paragraph says that a better way to fight crime is to decriminalize drugs. OK. That's a major part of the libertarian platform, but now he's not talking about guns anymore.

And then the third paragraph is this:

"I also object to the Republican Party's attempts to get the information of all concealed-carry permit holders in Virginia. Republicans claim to be in favor of freedom, gun rights, and privacy, but this once again shows that the GOP's self-interest comes before the rights of the people."

Huh? Did this really happen? I thought it was the newspapers that were trying to publish the names of permit holders. Since when did any politicians - D or R - try to get this information? And do what with it? I sure don't remember hearing anything about this.

[trailrunner]

I just followed the link he provided in the third paragraph to the article about the GOP trying to get the names of the CC permit holders. I did not realize that had happened. Not a good move on the Republicans part, but I hardly think that's a pressing, current issue to gun rights in VA. The questions in the VCDL survey were good and relevant issues, but Sarvis didn't mention a single one of those on his webpage. Maybe he's picking some safe issues for his website, maybe he's trying to bash the big D and R parties and in doing so paint himself as the best alternate choice (seems to be a big part of his campaign strategy), or maybe he's not familiar with gun issues and doesn't know what he's talking about. I dunno, but I'm not overwhelmed by what I've seen so far.

[Mindflayer]

It's a solid reminder that we have options besides GOP and DEM.

[ShotgunBlast]

I'm not that impressed. The first paragraphs says that gun laws so far haven't done much in practice to reduce crime and wind up burdening the law-abiding citizen. No argument with that, I guess, but he doesn't say anything about fundamental rights. So far, pretty weak.

I'm not sure how much detail you expect him to go into on a campaign site that's designed to attract the most amount of voters possible. That's why we have organizations like VCDL that specifically focus on this issue and drill down into the nitty gritty aspects of that issue. Sarvis must agree with the fundamental rights to keep and bear arms if the VCDL is going to give him its top rating of candidates. By comparison, Cuccinelli still doesn't have a gun page on his site and I don't expect him to ever get one.

The second paragraph says that a better way to fight crime is to decriminalize drugs. OK. That's a major part of the libertarian platform, but now he's not talking about guns anymore.

The second paragraph talks about gun violence and violent crimes, which I believe does have to do with guns as the general population sees it. This is also a good strategy of campaign sites to cross-link to other pages on the sites so a visitor will click on those links and see how issues are tied together as well as the visitor getting more information on the candidate.

And then the third paragraph is this:

"I also object to the Republican Party's attempts to get the information of all concealed-carry permit holders in Virginia. Republicans claim to be in favor of freedom, gun rights, and privacy, but this once again shows that the GOP's self-interest comes before the rights of the people."

Huh? Did this really happen? I thought it was the newspapers that were trying to publish the names of permit holders. Since when did any politicians - D or R - try to get this information? And do what with it? I sure don't remember hearing anything about this.

I just followed the link he provided in the third paragraph to the article about the GOP trying to get the names of the CC permit holders. I did not realize that had happened. Not a good move on the Republicans part, but I hardly think that's a pressing, current issue to gun rights in VA. The questions in the VCDL survey were good and relevant issues, but Sarvis didn't mention a single one of those on his webpage. Maybe he's picking some safe issues for his website, maybe he's trying to bash the big D and R parties and in doing so paint himself as the best alternate choice (seems to be a big part of his campaign strategy), or maybe he's not familiar with gun issues and doesn't know what he's talking about. I dunno, but I'm not overwhelmed by what I've seen so far.

The issue with the GOP getting CC information is that they were going to turn it into a mailing list for the election, banking on the assumption that most gun owners would probably turn out for a Republican candidate. If the Democratic party were trying a similar stunt, there would be a lot of people on this forum up in arms over it. Sarvis is indeed painting himself as the best alternative choice because in the end it doesn't matter if a D or a R is doing something wrong, it's wrong. Especially since they were trying to pull the last minute stunt mere days before that information became private as legislated by a Republican state government.

You're more than welcome to vote for whoever you want, but as Mindflayer said it's a solid reminder that there are more options, and in this race (to the bottom) it seems like more Virginians want options.

WASHINGTON (WUSA9) -- Just a few days ago, I was lucky enough to moderate a forum for Virginia's two gubernatorial candidates, Republican Attorney General Ken Cucinelli and Democrat Terry McAuliffe.

Both of them did fine, I guess. But like a lot of you, I came away thinking: Is this the best we've got?

http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/27056 ... -new-blood

Sarvis is also doing events across the state, so you're welcome to ask him specific questions on the issues of importance as I have.

[NovaHunter]

Guys, Ken was one of the most Pro gun state senators we had in the VA State Senate. His convictions haven't changed on that. I'd like to see why VCDL marked him as So-So, because he has been anything but for us over his career.

The RPV did attempt to request lists of CCW holders for it's Get Out The Vote this year. There are alot of gun owners that don't vote in the Statewide races in the off years, and it's important they do. We need to keep VA gun friendly.

Thanks,
Ryan Gleason

[SpanishInquisition]

So inportant that ethics are pushed aside?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[NovaHunter]

Spanish, what ethical issues? Both parties mine data all the time to develop their lists. Now, I would have been completely opposed to the RPV or any other group publishing it, but they weren't going to do that. Even still, they did drop the request after the concerns voiced by many.

The larger point is, how do we get gun owners more involved in the state level elections, because our state officials are far more likely to affect our gun rights (both positively and negatively) then our federal officials.

-Ryan

[FiremanBob]

I have seen nothing in Cuccinelli's handling of his job that would indicate he has any ethical issues at all.

On the other hand, everything about McAuliffe is an ethical cesspool.

[trailrunner]

ShotgunBlast - I understand your points and agree with some of them to some degree. I realize that politicians may want to take an overt stand on issues on their website, but I get tired of that. Just man up and tell me what you stand for in clear terms. I also get the impression that he's a newcomer to gun issues. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.

I'm not sure I agree that the public sees the gun issue through drug crimes. It's the Aurora and Newton incidents that seems to fuel a lot of the anti-gun fervor (or at least, that the anti-gun lobby takes advantage of those incidents), not the routine gang-bangers. I saw his second paragraph as ducking the issue of fundamental gun rights and instead talking about loosening the drug laws. In a convoluted sense, I could see perhaps loosening drug laws could lead to less drug crime which could lead to less gun crimes which could take the pressure of preserving our gun rights, and I may or may not agree with this, but again, we've lost the focus on inherent gun rights and are trying to solve the problem with social engineering.

As far as the GOP trying to get the CCW names (his third paragraph) - Their motivation wasn't as bad as the newspapers who are trying to embarrass the gun owners, but again, this is simply not a core issue to gun rights right now. We won that battle on 1 July: our names are secure. So he brought that up to snipe at the GOP and to show that there is an alternative, which doesn't really have anything to do with fundamental gun rights.

I'm not trying to say Sarvis is anti-gun. He may be our best ally, and I trust VCDL's survey, so he has that going for him. If he is our ally, I'll strongly consider him. I've voted libertarian many times in my life. I'm just saying that I sense that he's a newcomer to gun issues and doesn't really understand the nuances. This isn't necessarily bad, but it doesn't automatically win my vote either.

[DryBones]

The GOP request for CHP info was well covered here when it happened. Perhaps those that missed it need to read all the sections here. They sent the request to all the Clerks of Court asking for the info. They took such a beating when it went public that they rescinded the request.

[Kreutz]

Normally I'd vote for Sarvis, but given KC's gun record in a rather blue district, it shows he will actually fight for what he believes is right, not whats popular.

Unfortunately Sarvis doesn't have a record I could verify...its easy to talk big, but when you're in a position with constituents and other interests to answer to, how you respond is of great interest to me. You could stand firm, or be like say Romney and fold and contort yourself with every political wind that blows.

I don't care much honestly for the "social conservative" stuff KC is wedded to, but I think the GA would keep all that reined in anyway should he make it a big part of his office, so it doesn't concern me much.

[ShotgunBlast]

Um, mandatory vaginal ultrasounds? There's your GA keeping social conservatism in check.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Kreutz]

Um, mandatory vaginal ultrasounds? There's your GA keeping social conservatism in check.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

You're smarter than that; that was media idiocy run amok.

All abortions require an ultrasound (used to calculate gestational age and determine if more than one fetus is present) before and after (to make sure the uterus is cleared).

And as for mandatory "vaginal" ultrasound, that was more sensationalism; the word "transvaginal" appeared not once.

The bill proposed had simply required doctors to give women the opportunity to see the ultrasound; no more, no less.

[Mindflayer]

I don't want people in power telling me what to do based on their elitism over intellect (DEM) or morality (GOP). I'll vote my conscience this time around.