Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Kreutz wrote:

Wayne wrote:Here is the question don't vote for Obama, but vote for who? 3 out of the 4 are anti gun, in the leased they voted for control limits, at worse they have voted for out right bans, one of them has returned any of the surveys from NRA or any of the Gun groups, hell Romney still says Semi Autos and handguns need to be band all though he does add that hold over 10 rounds after it now. None of their Budgets will cut anything, and will increase the deficit by trillions a year, so who to vote for? I left the NRA because they want to chose someone who can beat Obama, instead of putting thier backing behind the most conservative pro gun guy, they would rather sell down the river our rights just to beat Obama with a guy that just like him, or maybe even worse. I have much more I can say about this subject, but Ill leave you will this though, Gun control was created to keep the government safe from the masses. I know you may not think that's true but in the constitution it says shall not be infringe and give direction as to why in the Federalist Papers. You can not force a government to be have when they have more fire power than you do. Other words Federal Gun Control of any type is by definition illegal.

The front runner (the Romneybot who is about to shake his etch a sketch for an ideological do-over soon) is from Massachusetts and the incumbent from Illinois; both are very strictly anti-gun. The most pro gun candidate got drummed out early for being unable to form sentences.

The other people in the primary aren't gonna win so they don't warrant attention.

Wouldn't it be easier to just post a link to the Daily KOS for kreutz's opinions?

He's already said he stands to make a killing off Obamacre and that's who he's voting for so who gives a crap about his opinion? Other than him of course.

He obviously get's the daily fecies bomb talking points.

Every time an incumbent is voted out, it is a message that their policies are not appreciated. Conversely, when voted back in it is understood that their policies are acceptable. While neither candidate represents my ideal President, I'll be damned if I'll send a message that current policies are desired.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I would like to point out to the Gunny's credit that he did not support a particular candidate. Good to see someone can set the example of professionalism and tact.

His support has been stated previously and is well known.

We must get conservatives, specially gun people who have a poor voting participation to vote. Or the current soft tyranny will continue and get worse.

Kreutz is the MILDEST form of "liberal" on this site, and though we disagree, I like having his viewpoint available. There are others on this site who make Kreutz look like a "GOP LUV CHILD" when compared to them.

I'm as conservative libertarian as you'll find, but the name calling, and finger pointing has to stop. If all you find are problems, you're solving... NOTHING! Find a viable solution that is amicable to all sides.

Because in truth? The people who SHOULD have abortions DON'T, and the people who need guns WON'T. There ya' are.. in a nutshell.

I agree...this genetically defective southern boy is out. Last comment on this thread

If you give it out you should be man enough to take it without you and your ilk whining as the victim.

Conservatives need to get angry. I'm angry.

Brooke's Trigger the Vote video.

Reverenddel wrote:Because in truth? The people who SHOULD have abortions DON'T, and the people who need guns WON'T. There ya' are.. in a nutshell.

Harsh but true I guess.

Kind of obligated to mention I'm not actually a liberal(whatever that means since no one has one definition), just favor center-left economics, particularly in regards to overall market factors(such as say, I think the state should and must ensure relatively clean drinking water, or see that drug/food manufacturers take steps to ensure quality).

On most private party transactions I think the government has no business, so laws like the Fair Housing Act and Fair Housing Amendments Act which states a landlord cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, etc don't seem right to me.

It is the right of the owner to do with their property as they please. If they wish to discriminate against group X, then they lose group X's capital and that should be the end of it without lawsuits and fines from the state. Beyond enforcing contracts I see no need for state laws to exist on these kinds of private transactions.


Socially I trend more towards libertarianism and think the delicate balancing act we call society, with all its competing interests really would flow alot smoother if people were left to their own devices alot more. That includes buying drugs or sex with ones own money from a willing seller, not needing to clear a mountain of paperwork to own a silencer just to avoid disturbing the peace while shooting, or being allowed to homeschool your own damned kids if you choose to do so without having to be "allowed" to.

Kreutz wrote:

Reverenddel wrote:Because in truth? The people who SHOULD have abortions DON'T, and the people who need guns WON'T. There ya' are.. in a nutshell.

Harsh but true I guess.

Kind of obligated to mention I'm not actually a liberal(whatever that means since no one has one definition), just favor center-left economics, particularly in regards to overall market factors(such as say, I think the state should and must ensure relatively clean drinking water, or see that drug/food manufacturers take steps to ensure quality).

On most private party transactions I think the government has no business, so laws like the Fair Housing Act and Fair Housing Amendments Act which states a landlord cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, etc don't seem right to me.

It is the right of the owner to do with their property as they please. If they wish to discriminate against group X, then they lose group X's capital and that should be the end of it without lawsuits and fines from the state. Beyond enforcing contracts I see no need for state laws to exist on these kinds of private transactions.


Socially I trend more towards libertarianism and think the delicate balancing act we call society, with all its competing interests really would flow alot smoother if people were left to their own devices alot more. That includes buying drugs or sex with ones own money from a willing seller, not needing to clear a mountain of paperwork to own a silencer just to avoid disturbing the peace while shooting, or being allowed to homeschool your own damned kids if you choose to do so without having to be "allowed" to.

I'm inclined to agree with the bulk of that. Though, if a government agency must get involved with medications, food, or water, I'd prefer it be a county agency.

SHMIV wrote:I'm inclined to agree with the bulk of that. Though, if a government agency must get involved with medications, food, or water, I'd prefer it be a county agency.

Between counties being underfunded as it is (unless you want your property taxes going up) and so much food, water, and medications being shipped over county and state lines, I don't see how that would be a viable option.

ShotgunBlast wrote:

SHMIV wrote:I'm inclined to agree with the bulk of that. Though, if a government agency must get involved with medications, food, or water, I'd prefer it be a county agency.

Between counties being underfunded as it is (unless you want your property taxes going up) and so much food, water, and medications being shipped over county and state lines, I don't see how that would be a viable option.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'd have to agree with Shotgun here. States are capable of this function, and in my opinion, more likely to do it well than the Feds. Few counties would be capable.

As it stands now, I agree that Shotgun is right, too. But, counties are still doing things that they have no business doing, anyway, and that costs money, too. County, State, and Federal could all stand to trim down a lot.

Once a Marine always a Marine
Semper Fi Gunny
Sgt. Bill

I can't believe that some of yinz (that's Western PA for "y'all") are bad-mouthing the greatest POTUS and CINC this country has ever had! Aw she-it! I forgot my meds this morning!

Gunny for President! Ooh-Rah!

Here's a radical thought... The LOCAL GUV'MINTS get the LIONS Share of the taxes, THEN State, THEN the Federal guv'mint gets whatever is left over for DEFENSE, and INTERSTATE COMMERCE!

If you don't like how a local guv'mint is ruled? You move 10 miles, not out of the country.

just a thought.

ronster19 wrote:Good message from R. Lee. He brings tears to my eyes.

Real man, real honor, real integrity,real patriot. we need more,alot more,like him. Allen West?

Hmmm, the fellow in the yellow shirt in the video is national service rifle champion (several times over) Dennis DeMille

I saw a video the other day, Romney is still going to be an issue with gun rights! Obama is worse, but still.

We need a libertarian to win!

g2gunny wrote:We need a libertarian to win!

Too bad we don't have one running.