Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

ratherfish wrote:Remember libertarians...

"STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES"

Like B HO? You'll LOVE McASS!

Ahh, now I know who you remind me of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn2OPhLTZgw

ratherfish wrote:

gunderwood wrote:

ratherfish wrote:We know very well what the progressive/democraps have in mind.

Amazing you're not against them and with each other.

Sometimes independent/libertarian means sheeple when you can't agree on the GOAL and win like the liberals.

I don't care WHO the anti progressive candidate is! I don't have to be 100% in agreement with an anti progressive candidate. We must defeat the progressive agenda!

Vote for the MOST CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE THAT CAN WIN!

This is getting stupid!

You're such a partisan hack that I'm beginning to suspect you would have voted for Obama if he ran as a Republican.

I'm a partisan without a party.

CONSERVATIVE!

How many LIBERALS have the unelectable LIBERTARIANS put in office??? They're a significant voting block when considered with the chosen frosen who don't vote to feel above the frey!

Libetarians have much in common with conservatives... after all the progressives would just as well place us both blindfolded against the wall for their final solution.

BTW did You vote for the libertarian and elect OBUMMER???????

No that's a hack!

Your words speak volumes.

Quick question, how many LIBERALS have you put into office voting for REPUBLICANS? (caps used since it's apparently the only reasonable way to communicate)

I'll come back and read this one with my gun muffs on...

so much shouting.

Palladin wrote:I'll come back and read this one with my gun muffs on...

so much shouting.

LOL.

Remember folks, only 20 more shouting days until the election

I can respect anyone who votes for Sarvis, but the reality of the situation is that we could use the votes for Cucc (hereinafter "Cooch").

After the recent all out attacks on 2A, I have come to the decision that 2A is the most sacred aspect of our laws: if we have it, we always have the hope of overturning the idiotic decisions of our government, which has grown to severely infect all branches.

So, why don't I vote Sarvis? It's practical only. We will very likely maintain a strong pro 2A presence in the legislature, the AG, and LT GOV. Therefore there is little the Govenor can do here. At worst he can choose not to sign a carry law. Big deal, we are pretty good already. On the flip side his answers to VCDL over the years indicate he will strongly support most pro gun laws. The bloomenstain funded moron will make it difficult to keep any good new pro 2A laws.

Therefore practically speaking. At this point in history, where Sarvis stands no real chance but symbolic, it makes a lot more sense to go with Cooch.

Meantime lets get Tea Party people running for these offices! Next time we can spank Cooch at the caucus!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

... Or primary.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Remek wrote:I can respect anyone who votes for Sarvis, but the reality of the situation is that we could use the votes for Cucc (hereinafter "Cooch").

After the recent all out attacks on 2A, I have come to the decision that 2A is the most sacred aspect of our laws: if we have it, we always have the hope of overturning the idiotic decisions of our government, which has grown to severely infect all branches.

So, why don't I vote Sarvis? It's practical only. We will very likely maintain a strong pro 2A presence in the legislature, the AG, and LT GOV. Therefore there is little the Govenor can do here. At worst he can choose not to sign a carry law. Big deal, we are pretty good already. On the flip side his answers to VCDL over the years indicate he will strongly support most pro gun laws. The bloomenstain funded moron will make it difficult to keep any good new pro 2A laws.

Therefore practically speaking. At this point in history, where Sarvis stands no real chance but symbolic, it makes a lot more sense to go with Cooch.

Meantime lets get Tea Party people running for these offices! Next time we can spank Cooch at the caucus!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I don't quite get it. You've pretty much said that the Gov position is pretty much moot in taking away your 2A rights, thereby eliminating your self-imposed objection to vote for Sarvis, but you're gonna vote for Cooch anyway?

Remek wrote:... Or primary.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

The Virginia GOP doesn't seem to do those anymore. It's conventions only where the top dogs have more control over who gets the nod and the average Republican voter gets the middle finger.

ShotgunBlast wrote:

Remek wrote:I can respect anyone who votes for Sarvis, but the reality of the situation is that we could use the votes for Cucc (hereinafter "Cooch").

After the recent all out attacks on 2A, I have come to the decision that 2A is the most sacred aspect of our laws: if we have it, we always have the hope of overturning the idiotic decisions of our government, which has grown to severely infect all branches.

So, why don't I vote Sarvis? It's practical only. We will very likely maintain a strong pro 2A presence in the legislature, the AG, and LT GOV. Therefore there is little the Govenor can do here. At worst he can choose not to sign a carry law. Big deal, we are pretty good already. On the flip side his answers to VCDL over the years indicate he will strongly support most pro gun laws. The bloomenstain funded moron will make it difficult to keep any good new pro 2A laws.

Therefore practically speaking. At this point in history, where Sarvis stands no real chance but symbolic, it makes a lot more sense to go with Cooch.

Meantime lets get Tea Party people running for these offices! Next time we can spank Cooch at the caucus!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I don't quite get it. You've pretty much said that the Gov position is pretty much moot in taking away your 2A rights, thereby eliminating your self-imposed objection to vote for Sarvis, but you're gonna vote for Cooch anyway?

Sorry, let me close the final argument for you. To me it seemed clear, but I have to admit, you cannot read my mind.

If we let McAwful in, he will sign AGAINST every law making progress for gun owners. Therefore, while Cooch will no provide the constitutional amendment for carry, McAwful will certainly not allow any progress. Given that the constitutional carry is not such a big deal given present laws, its therefore better to take the advantages of Cooch versus the clear disadvantage of McAwful.

That said, I do respect the Sarvis voters. If he actually stood a chance, I'd be voting with you!

Yes, and on non-gun issues, McAuliffe stinks like a week-old fish. I don't feel like I have to vote for Cuccinelli so much as I feel like I have to vote against McAuliffe. And sad as it may be, a vote for Sarvis is likely to put McAuliffe in the Governor's Mansion.

dorminWS wrote:Yes, and on non-gun issues, McAuliffe stinks like a week-old fish. I don't feel like I have to vote for Cuccinelli so much as I feel like I have to vote against McAuliffe. And sad as it may be, a vote for Sarvis is likely to put McAuliffe in the Governor's Mansion.

I am with you there.

dorminWS wrote:Yes, and on non-gun issues, McAuliffe stinks like a week-old fish. I don't feel like I have to vote for Cuccinelli so much as I feel like I have to vote against McAuliffe. And sad as it may be, a vote for Sarvis is likely to put McAuliffe in the Governor's Mansion.

I am with you there.

VOTE FOR CUCCINELLI!!!

Here's why:

Got en e-mail today:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Gun Owners of America
________________________________________
More Anti-gunners Pouring Big Bucks
into McAuliffe Campaign
Gabby Giffords says she will spend “what it takes” for him to win
First, there was anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg.
Now there’s Gabby Giffords -- the former Arizona congresswoman who was tragically shot in 2011, but then later founded an anti-gun group.
Giffords wants to pour hundreds of thousands of her organization’s dollars into the Virginia gubernatorial campaign.
But why would Giffords and New York City Mayor Bloomberg be so interested in this race?
Quite simply, because the leading two candidates couldn’t be further apart on the Second Amendment.
Sitting Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has spent over a decade in public service, working to defend the rights of gun owners. In fact, that’s exactly what Giffords doesn’t like about Cuccinelli.
You can help counter Giffords’ Big Bucks by giving Ken a generous contribution here!
In a recent Politico article, Giffords said that her group’s opposition to Cuccinelli stems from his “record on guns.”
Specifically, Cuccinelli has opposed banning the private sales of firearms -- unless they first go through a government registration check -- and he has worked to repeal “restrictions on the purchasing and carrying of firearms in locations including bars and restaurants.”
Terry McAuliffe, on the other hand, supports a whole host of gun control restrictions, including:
* A ban on private sales of firearms (absent a government background registration check).
* A ban on the Internet “mail order” sales of firearms.
* A ban on various semi-automatic firearms.
* A limitation on magazines.
* A one-gun-a-month ban, and much more.
According to Politico, Cuccinelli is a few points behind, which means that the Libertarian candidate in the race could end up throwing the victory to McAuliffe.
You can volunteer to help get Ken elected by going here.
Quite frankly, the Tea Party has demonstrated how to make a positive impact upon the political process. The way you do it is by running your candidate in the primaries.
For example, GOA’s Political Victory Fund -- as well as Tea Party activists -- helped Texas Republican Ted Cruz win his primary (and eventually, the general election) in 2012.
Yes, that’s the very Senator Cruz who recently spearheaded a pseudo-filibuster of the anti-gun ObamaCare law and who has emerged as one of the leading Second Amendment champions in the country.
But in 2012, Cruz was running for the Senate against both a Democrat and a third party candidate -- the latter being a candidate who was also good on guns.
Had we thrown our support behind the third party candidate, we would have missed a chance to help elect the number one champion on gun rights in the U.S. Senate right now -- and we could have, inadvertently, helped to elect the anti-gun Democrat that was running in that race.
We’re facing that very same dilemma in Virginia right now. The polls show that the election is very close.
Ken Cuccinelli is a PROVEN leader for gun rights. McAuliffe has promised you that he will ignore the Constitution to advance his anti-gun agenda and take away your guns.
So please volunteer to help get Ken elected.
And if a contribution is the only help you can give now, then please give generously to Ken’s campaign.
There’s less than a month before the election. Every day is critical.
And as always, please plan to get you and your pro-gun family and friends to the polls on Tuesday, November 5.
I thank you for your help and time!
Sincerely,
Tim Macy
Vice-Chairman
Paid for by Gun Owners of America.
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee

Seems the internet protocol of

NOT SHOUTING

Is more impoortant than holding on to our guns. For the suddenly reserved....please note that a general comment is not personal unless you take it so.

Funny how many so called "libertarians" adopt the thin skinned style of liberals when debating politics. Frankly if you're not passionate you're playing. Aren't we getting enough sandbox politicians at the moment?
How bout sheer truth??????

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/17/v ... -all-time/

ShotgunBlast wrote:

Remek wrote:... Or primary.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

The Virginia GOP doesn't seem to do those anymore. It's conventions only where the top dogs have more control over who gets the nod and the average Republican voter gets the middle finger.

Actually the convention selections and primaries in VA are not uncommon, both parties have bounced back and forth.

That’s what happened this cycle. Virginia Republicans were set to nominate their statewide ticket through a primary, and Cuccinelli and Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling (R) were preparing for what could’ve been a competitive primary — although Cuccinelli’s more conservative profile made him an obvious favorite. Yet Cuccinelli and his allies knew that a convention would assure his nomination with far less money expended, and they pushed the state party’s Cuccinelli-controlled central committee to switch to a convention. That decision caused Bolling to exit the race, but it also created an environment that led to Jackson’s nomination. (Democrats are nominating their statewide ticket in a primary this year; gubernatorial nominee Terry McAuliffe is unopposed but there are contested primaries for lieutenant governor and attorney general.)

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crysta ... r-a-party/
Since Cuccinelli's supporters didn't want to see him in a primary against more middle of the road Bolling, they may have hurt him more by not having a primary. VA's exposure to him via the primary coverage would have been greater, of course he could have lost in the primary to Bolling too. We will never know.

There is one huge difference in VA versus the national political picture, if Mac is elected, at best he will have an evenly divided State Senate to support his actions. That would be far different from Harry Reid's US Senate. I don't think he would get away with the Executive Orders/ interpretations that the President has.

Remek wrote:

ShotgunBlast wrote:

Remek wrote:I can respect anyone who votes for Sarvis, but the reality of the situation is that we could use the votes for Cucc (hereinafter "Cooch").

After the recent all out attacks on 2A, I have come to the decision that 2A is the most sacred aspect of our laws: if we have it, we always have the hope of overturning the idiotic decisions of our government, which has grown to severely infect all branches.

So, why don't I vote Sarvis? It's practical only. We will very likely maintain a strong pro 2A presence in the legislature, the AG, and LT GOV. Therefore there is little the Govenor can do here. At worst he can choose not to sign a carry law. Big deal, we are pretty good already. On the flip side his answers to VCDL over the years indicate he will strongly support most pro gun laws. The bloomenstain funded moron will make it difficult to keep any good new pro 2A laws.

Therefore practically speaking. At this point in history, where Sarvis stands no real chance but symbolic, it makes a lot more sense to go with Cooch.

Meantime lets get Tea Party people running for these offices! Next time we can spank Cooch at the caucus!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I don't quite get it. You've pretty much said that the Gov position is pretty much moot in taking away your 2A rights, thereby eliminating your self-imposed objection to vote for Sarvis, but you're gonna vote for Cooch anyway?

Sorry, let me close the final argument for you. To me it seemed clear, but I have to admit, you cannot read my mind.

If we let McAwful in, he will sign AGAINST every law making progress for gun owners. Therefore, while Cooch will no provide the constitutional amendment for carry, McAwful will certainly not allow any progress. Given that the constitutional carry is not such a big deal given present laws, its therefore better to take the advantages of Cooch versus the clear disadvantage of McAwful.

That said, I do respect the Sarvis voters. If he actually stood a chance, I'd be voting with you!

Yes, but as you've said the legislature is pro-gun and I don't think either of us expect that to change. We didn't just survive the worst onslaught against gun rights last year, we freaking trampled the anti-gunners. With almost everything not even getting out of committee, the governor's position on the matter is still moot. It's a shame that you're copping out with the "if he stood a chance I'd vote for him" line. You know how he stands a chance? By people voting for him! I don't understand how people think he'll magically become a viable candidate if everyone waits for everyone else to vote for him.

The only chance Sarvis has is as a Democrat spoiler electing McClinton.

Be real.

ratherfish wrote:Seems the internet protocol of

NOT SHOUTING

Is more impoortant than holding on to our guns. For the suddenly reserved....please note that a general comment is not personal unless you take it so.

Funny how many so called "libertarians" adopt the thin skinned style of liberals when debating politics. Frankly if you're not passionate you're playing. Aren't we getting enough sandbox politicians at the moment?
How bout sheer truth??????

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/17/v ... -all-time/

Debate? LOL Actually, I think it's funny how few of your posts have any actual content. For someone with an apparent SIGINT background, your S/N ratio is incredibly low. I've posted the stance of Sarvis on many issues, yet when I mention one plank in the platform you instantly accuse of single-issuedom.

Name calling, blathering and ALL CAPS BS is not debate and you should know better.

Should McAuliff win, I will ridicule YOU for not voting for the best candidate, Sarvis, Mister Blame Game.

I think what happened last night in DC will tell us more about the mid-terms than the VA Gubernatorial race will. How about that 2 BILLION + in pork for the Senate Minority leader?