Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

And they're laughing on the ground....

Fact is the majority of state legislatures are red as are many gov's...

Read the info. this has never been used before and was put into the constitution for such a time as this.

Or you could just keep voting for the democrap funded spoilers.

Do what you darn well want Virginians. I'm just hoping McAzzhat doesn't steal enough of my life so I can't be ready to make the move in 3 years.

Think KC will run against Warner for the Senate?

ratherfish wrote: Fact is the majority of state legislatures are red as are many gov's...

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

Which is a damned good argument for repealing the 17th Amendment. It was a progressive scam to begin with.

allingeneral wrote:I think one of the biggest things that didn't make your list is the fact that Cuccinelli was rabidly against abortion and sponsored bills in Richmond that were way too conservative regarding abortion. I think there were a lot of female Republicans (Conservatives) who voted for either the D or the L because they felt that Cuccinelli threatened their ability to choose and even went so far as to support trans-vaginal ultrasounds as a pre-abortion step. Not surprisingly, this made women feel "violated", so to speak.

Cuccinelli lost because he lost the female vote due his hard-line stance on abortion.

Haven't been part of the discussions the last week because I've been wiping the blood, sweat, and tear away from my eyes to borrow what Tactical Mom said in another thread.

We lost women overall, but only by 9% points. 52% to 41%. For all the money that McAuliffe spent on the "war on Women" theme the fact that he only beat us by that amount is surprising. Most of the polls had us losing the women vote by 20points or more. Also, Ken actualy WON married women. It was single women who bought the "war on women" them.

For a full Post mortem, there is so much to be said. But here is some of my perspective:

National Party money: Yes, it would have been a huge help to have more. However, we only had about $3M less vs 2009 when you look at both the RNC and RGA together. In 2009, RNC spent alot in Va and not much in NJ and the RGA spent a bunch in NJ and not much in VA. in 2013, this flipped as the RGA spent over $8M in VA I believe. Now, it would have been really nice to get another $3M from the National Party orgs the first week of October so the campaign didn't have to go dark. I blame the media on that one though. They did such a good job skewing the polls from Labor Day onward that everyone thought Ken was down 7-10 points. Those polls (and the Party's stupidity in believing them) is why the money dried up.

And, if we are talking about money, Terry personally out raised Ken by something like $16M. That's a HUGE deficit.

Nova Units: Yes, we failed in Loudoun. But, PW and Fairfax also failed miserably. We lost Fairfax by 60,000. Even if we would have won Loudoun by 4000 votes instead of losing it by that much it would have barely dented the loss margin in Fairfax. We as a party need to have a stratedy where we at least stay competitive in Fairfax, and then try to eek out victories in Loudoun and PW. The Unit committees need to be part of the strategy and implementation, but at some level Ken's campaign pretty much wrote off Nova and the Unit committees aren't going to be able to make that up.

Sarvis: I don't think we know yet what Sarvis' effect on the race was. There is evidence I have seen that he pulled from Ken, and possibly suppressed our margins in SW VA. But, in Nova I think it is pretty clear that Sarvis pulled from Terry's margin. I don't know what the net Sarvis affect actually was. There also was at least one exit poll that showed over 7 of Sarvis supporters had Terry as there 2nd choice which would mean he hurt Terry much more then Ken.

I think this was death by 1000 cuts. Being outspent 4 to 1, McDonnell Giftgate, Transportation bill last year, the botched VCDL survey (which I blame squarely on VCDL because they mishandled their ratings BADLY), Base turnout/ Low turnout strategy of the campaign, Poor communication from Ken's campaign, Maybe a Sarvis effect pulling votes from Ken, and I could go on.

In the end, we lost by 2.5%, and I would bet money that other less inspiring candidates would have lost by well over 10% if they had all those things working against them.

Remek wrote:Okay, I have to admit the convention of states is a great idea.

How long has the project been up, and how active is it? From the website, I am thinkng there isnt much interest.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Convention of states is an absolutely HORRIBLE idea. Per Robert's Rules of Order, any Agenda can be amended. So, we could call for a Convention to adopt a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, one person could make a motion that the Convention also discuss an amendment saying everyone has the right to own a house, and at 21 years of age you get a house. The Assembly would then vote on it, and if it passes now we are discussing adding a "Right to Own a House" to the Constitution.

Additionally, a major reason we are in such a mess is that our current leaders aren't following the Constitution as currently written. Why would they follow one additional Amendment and not just ignore it like they do right now to all the other parts that limit power?

-Ryan

There's always a neigh-sayer. The fact is, I don't think we should sit in this poop and do nothing. I want to claw my way out. No one's doing anything. I'd be up for giving the HILLARiouslY stupid one an enema if it'd help, but I am sure someone would poo-poo that too as useless.

Remek wrote:There's always a neigh-sayer. The fact is, I don't think we should sit in this poop and do nothing. I want to claw my way out. No one's doing anything. I'd be up for giving the HILLARiouslY stupid one an enema if it'd help, but I am sure someone would poo-poo that too as useless.

I absolutely agree we shouldn't sit and do nothing. We need to get good people elected who will uphold the rule of law and our current Constitution. Getting good people elected at the Local, State, Federal level is very possible, and if we don't do that it doesn't really matter what our Constitution says because people in power have shown they will just ignore it if it's inconvenient for them.

Read "The Liberty Amendments" by Mark Levin.

No chance of a run away process.

"Men in Black"
"Liberty and Tyranny"
"Ameritopia"
help understand what and why we got here..

Of course I understand that most of our society can't or wouldn't have the focus to actually read a book.

This one line would have guaranteed a cuchinelli win...

"I don't support abortion, but it's your choice"

Man didn't know how to play the game with that one.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

And then lost him 20% of the other side at least. So no that would not have helped him.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Look at all of the posts that have been put on this forum just on KC's stance when it comes to abortion, and that's only one leg of the social issue stool. We haven't even addressed gay marriage and drug legislation yet. You would think a liberty minded candidate would be behind those issues because government shouldn't be involved, but again KC is nowhere to be found.

These issues will need to be addressed in the GOP. We've learned from the last two years of elections that voters are not voting on the economy. All of those "secondary, less important" social issues that some here have dismissed are what's being talked about and voted on whether you feel they're important or not.

You know shotgun I could go with you on several of those places (though it is license not liberty) but when an innocent person dies for another persons convenience, I don't think it that is liberty minded at all.

It not necessarily the place of govt to protect us from our poor drug choices, it is not necessarily the place of govt to legislate marriage. It is however the place of govt to protect innocent life. That is an legitimate use of govt.

I am not for anarchy. I am for the correct use of govt.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Y'all who think the pro lifers should shut up and sit down should consider this. It is not only the pre born the eugenists want to kill. Check out what is happening in Europe.....get too old, get a little sick....they will kill you in a millisecond especially if they think they can get a kidney in the process. After all you are an inconvenience to your loved ones and the all loving all knowing state.

You get us to shut up you, you gag us, who will speak for you when you become what is being known as a "post person".


If you do not have life, no other liberty matters.


BTW McAwful could not campaign on abortion, so instead he campaigned on Birth control an issue that has been dead for 40 years. Just because the democrat lies does not mean we should agree to permit murder.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

vaeevictiss wrote:This one line would have guaranteed a cuchinelli win...

"I don't support abortion, but it's your choice"

Man didn't know how to play the game with that one.

I agree with this.

vaeevictiss wrote:This one line would have guaranteed a cuchinelli win...

"I don't support abortion, but it's your choice"

Man didn't know how to play the game with that one.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

That's just not true. And, if you know Ken there's no way he would have done that.

Did we message wrong in the subject, yes absolutely. Abortion clinics, until last year, were not regulated as medical centers. They perform SURGERY, and until last year had no regs on cleanliness, procedure, or anything in VA. Veterinarians had higher standards they had to meet. Hence, why 5 years ago a woman DIED in Fairfax from an abortion procedure. Don't we want these "Women's health Centers" to have the same cleanliness standards that our animal doctors have to follow?

We Pro-Lifers don't want the possibility of a Kermit Gosnell in Virginia (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/13/justice/p ... ctor-trial).

Abortion, Safe, Legal, Rare is a winning message but we're just not making it right now.

If Ken's campaign would have shortened and put money behind this ad, then it would have helped alot with the message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7flHYaQjvk

ratherfish wrote:Read "The Liberty Amendments" by Mark Levin.

No chance of a run away process.

"Men in Black"
"Liberty and Tyranny"
"Ameritopia"
help understand what and why we got here..

Of course I understand that most of our society can't or wouldn't have the focus to actually read a book.

Yes, I'm actually I'm actually pretty familiar with his supposed reasons on why a Run Away process won't happen. However, neither Mark Levin nor any other advocate has answered these issues. A Convention (or 50 state Conventions) would not just be filled with Liberty loving activists. It would be filled with a cross section of the populace. Do we really think that a cross section of the populace is going to agree to Liberty Amendments?

And again, Roberts Rules, which are the rules that are adopted by pretty much all public assemblies from Congress to Town Halls, states that an assembly CAN amend the Agenda for any meeting with a 2/3's vote. So, despite Levin's assurances, any convention Agenda can be amended all it would take is a Motion to add X item to the Agenda and 2/3's agreed that it should just be DISCUSSED. I have yet to see any Convention of the States supporter actually deal with this issue and point to a section in Roberts Rules which states otherwise.

So, if a woman can murder her unborn child because the child would be inconvenient for her, can a man murder his wife he finds her to be an inconvenience? Or, perhaps we can murder inconvenient business partners, or competitors. Surely, if murder for convenience is OK, I can start running cars off the road when their drivers put them in my way.

Maybe you disagree, but you wouldn't want to interfere with the rights of the inconvenienced, would you?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

...are you gonna raise that child that she couldn't, then?

If both she and the state get out of my way and not require me to permanently cede my right to privacy within my home, certainly and with great joy.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]