Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

VBshooter wrote:Simple solution, get the hell out and vote,,, If you don't, you have nothing to say about the results. Granted, a candidate may not be perfect and in other cases they're a complete train wreck, but the results of not voting against that train wreck could be devastating for our rights,

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

Anything is possible...
Sign for Karl Marx for president! http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-1 ... as-arrived
Watch the video at the end of the article. But article worth reading too.
We are soooo f***...

I will vote for Cuccinelli, because I don't want VA to become another
People's Republic of Maryland.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Cuccinelli is by far the best choice for VA. People have got to get out and VOTE !

Even VCDL says the AG is so-so on 2a whereas they indicate thst Sarvis is very pro-gun. He's the least "train-wrecky" of the three.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Same old story. The "establishment" Republican party chooses a poor candidate (read unlikely to win due to being a mild RINO on some key issues...e.g. 2A) because he's part of the good o'boy network, then start blaming everyone else for their poor choice in candidates. You know your FUBARed when you have to resort to this well in advance of actually loosing. If there is this much disagreement on a gun forum (traditionally a R stronghold), things are not looking good.

In this case the R would be better than the D, but the R is not great and will likely loose (if not, it will be a squeaker). Haven't decided who I will vote for (R or L), but regardless you "R at any cost" types have only yourself to blame. If you want to win, choose better candidates and quite relying on the other guy being worse enough to get the vote. Run a good candidate and it won't matter what the radical D's hiding from the public.

If 2A was the only issue that I considered, I might be more inclined togive Sarvis a closer look. But, his stance (or, rather, the peculiar lack thereof) on abortion is troublesome to me. KC seems to be deadset against the notion that women ought to be allowed to brutally murder their unborn children, and I strongly agree with him. KC seems to have been faithful to gun owners, thus far. Sarvis indicated on a survey that he is very pro-2A, and he may very well be. I don't know that for sure, though.

As far as I can tell, KC is the first actual Republican I've seen on the Republican ticket in a while.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

SHMIV, I assure you that Sarvis will not force you or anyone else to have an abortion.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Ahh, Spanish, I never suggested that Sarvis, or anyone else, would.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Oh look, McCauliffe has his own disreputable donation issue: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/vir ... =AG0002994
I will say this is a lot smaller than Cuccinelli's $$, but I wonder if it will get the same kind of attention.

Yep, he sure does. Try to find dirt on Sarvis.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

SHMIV wrote:KC seems to have been faithful to gun owners, thus far. Sarvis indicated on a survey that he is very pro-2A, and he may very well be. I don't know that for sure, though.

No one knows anything for sure, but your double standards towards KC and RS is amazing. This line of thinking sets up the alternative excuse on why not to vote 3rd party. While bashing others for being career politicians (which makes them serve lobbyists instead of we the people), we can't actually vote for anyone else because they don't have an established voting record that a career politician would. We can create the illusion of outrage with our candidates while at the same time fortifying the stronghold of the two-party system.

Many talk about term limits to weed out the career politicians, but term limits would actually produce more scenarios like this as more citizen legislators get into the mix. My advice: talk to RS. He actually makes himself available to the voters all across the state (doesn't help if you're driving trucks out of state though). I've talked to him three times about various topics. He comes across as a say what you mean and mean what you say kinda guy. If you can't talk to him in person, there are more and more videos of him speaking being put online.

Once you get more comfortable you'll know Sarvis is pro-2A "for sure" just like you believe KC is.

ShotgunBlast wrote:While bashing others for being career politicians (which makes them serve lobbyists instead of we the people), we can't actually vote for anyone else because they don't have an established voting record that a career politician would. We can create the illusion of outrage with our candidates while at the same time fortifying the stronghold of the two-party system.

Many talk about term limits to weed out the career politicians, but term limits would actually produce more scenarios like this as more citizen legislators get into the mix.

This is all true, but we're talking about a governorship; shouldn't a candidate have at least some direct experience with the legislative process? The only reason I can't vote for Sarvis is because he has no record.

The man may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but don't you think it wise he cut his teeth on a race where the responsibility is more entry level, such as a city council race?

Plus this could let us see if how he talks is how he acts when put in a position of responsibility to an electorate.

I like Sarvis very well on almost all of the issues except the only one that matters: electability. The *electable* candidate that is most aligned with my beliefs is KC.

Let us be clear Sarvis is not going to be elected. It will The cooch or McAwful. So I will vote for the cooch.

But I always vote.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Kreutz wrote: This is all true, but we're talking about a governorship; shouldn't a candidate have at least some direct experience with the legislative process?

I'd say "No".
The governor is the administrative branch. IMO, Part of the problem in state and federal government is the cross-pollination between the branches.

I disagree.

When I talked to my state rep when he first took office, he bluntly said "It's like taking a drink from a firehose" in the learning curve.

When you do NOT have a familiarity with how things are processed, or the etiquette, you cannot manuever around in that realm.

It's like being in a fight, without any training. Sure you may get a good punch in here, and there... but when you're against a TRAINED EXPERIENCED FIGHTER? Yer gonna get your ass handed to you.

mamabearCali wrote:Let us be clear...

Will this be followed by "Make no mistake..."?

Reverenddel wrote:I disagree.

When I talked to my state rep when he first took office, he bluntly said "It's like taking a drink from a firehose" in the learning curve.

When you do NOT have a familiarity with how things are processed, or the etiquette, you cannot manuever around in that realm.

It's like being in a fight, without any training. Sure you may get a good punch in here, and there... but when you're against a TRAINED EXPERIENCED FIGHTER? Yer gonna get your ass handed to you.

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

On the other hand, even the best driver in the world will get lost if he can't read the road signs.

SpanishInquisition wrote:

Kreutz wrote: This is all true, but we're talking about a governorship; shouldn't a candidate have at least some direct experience with the legislative process?

I'd say "No".
The governor is the administrative branch. IMO, Part of the problem in state and federal government is the cross-pollination between the branches.

My mistake, thanks for the catch! In any event I stand by the rest of the post.

I love citizen-statesmen, however for the highest office in the land (as far as VA is concerned) the winner only has one term to do their job; so they'd better know what they're doing the first time since thats all the time they get.