Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

After Rand Paul's almost 13 hour old-fashioned spoken word filibuster yesterday, it's time for the aftermath. John McCain and Lindsey Graham both take their shots against Paul.

John McCain wrote:"Calm down, Senator," McCain said, in an admonition to Paul. "The U.S. government cannot randomly target U.S. citizens."

McCain argued that Paul's warning that the Obama could target would U.S. citizens in "cafes" on American soil, and his related "Jane Fonda" analogy, bring the debate into the "realm of the ridiculous."

"If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids," he said. "I don't think what happened yesterday is helpful to the American people."

http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/07/john- ... -declare-w

The problem is that these two are already slamming someone who has pretty much decided to run in 2016. I usually like Graham because he's been quite vocal about gun rights, but are these two the ones you want representing the GOP? Compared to say, the 13 GOP senators that participated with Paul during the filibuster (Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and more)? The GOP needs to figure this one out real quick if they want to be the party of freedom and liberty or if they'll just be the party of statism with a slightly different slant.

Meanwhile, a shrewd move by the POTUS to suck away participants to the filibuster. This guy will do ANYTHING to get drones out of the national conversation.

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama invited rank-and-file Republican senators to dinner Wednesday. His efforts are “aimed at jumpstarting budget talks and rallying support for his proposals on immigration and gun control,” according to the Associated Press.

The GOP lawmakers at Wednesday’s dinner were Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Tom Coburn, Kelly Ayotte, Pat Toomey, Bob Corker, Ron Johnson, Saxby Chambliss, John Hoeven, Dan Coats, Richard Burr and Mike Johanns. Toomey, Johnson and Chambliss headed to the Senate floor later that night.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03 ... re+Buttons

And where were the Democrats? Only one Democrat senator joined the filibuster. You'd think Democrats would be all over using military technology in our own borders, but when it comes to statism it doesn't matter if you have a D or a R after your name.

I am so very proud of Rand Paul. In the same manner I am chagrined by McCain and Graham. If you have not the strength nor the courage to fight, then stand aside and allow a stronger back to shoulder the load.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

It was the "realm of the ridiculous" not that long ago to suggest that the President would or could order the killing of an American citizen and thus depriving him of due process per the Constitution...yet it happened. Sure the guy was terrible and probably deserved to die, but so are serial killers. In these interesting times, what is ridiculous today is normal tomorrow.

As a former pow mccain disappoints me something terrible,he should know better

To me, there have been many occasions (too many) where McCain has come across as a RINO or closet Democrat. To me, he's way too close to center, center/left for my taste. I believe he is part of "what's wrong" with the Republican party. Is McCain so naive as to believe that a government that is willing to fly drones over U.S. soil would not someday be willing to kill Americans without due process in the name of homeland security? Then we would be wishing we had clarified with the WH and the DoJ whether they think this falls within the parameters of the Constitution and the 5th Amendment. I think McCain gives our government far too much credit about what they would and would not do in the future.

As for Graham, I'll call this strike one and put it in the back of my mind. Normally, I like him. But this was some serious BS on the part of both senators.

And good job to Sen. Paul for standing up to the socialist democrats and our narcissist, demagogue, communist-in-chief, Barack Hussein Obama.

Like all politicians who have stayed in office too long, mcCain has become another Washington insider instead of a representative of the people who sent him there. People need to wake up and make an effort to vote all the long termers out.

"If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids," he said. "I don't think what happened yesterday is helpful to the American people."

I find clarification on whether or not Eric Holder can blow me up while going about my business rather helpful.

Anyway, McCain really needs to crawl back into his sarcophagus in the Arizona sand. Spring is coming, and Thoth only knows what the moisture will do to his carefully preserved form.

Kreutz wrote:

"If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids," he said. "I don't think what happened yesterday is helpful to the American people."

I find clarification on whether or not Eric Holder can blow me up while going about my business rather helpful.

Anyway, McCain really needs to crawl back into his sarcophagus in the Arizona sand. Spring is coming, and Thoth only knows what the moisture will do to his carefully preserved form.

Agreed, Kreutz -- on all of your comments.

McCain needs to fade into the sunset like Bob Dole did..WE do not need these old RINO farts around anymore... At least Rand Paul had the balls to do what he did and not apologize ... WE need that agian in this country and from more sides than one. PC and BS is killing us. Time to take this ship back and put a few librals in the brig,,

We need to take out the RINO trash.

The Tea Party should take out Graham and McCain in the next primary.....join and help.

Rand isthe future and I hope these two are he past..

John McCain: a fine young man from a glorious military family, college at Annapolis, suffered and led heroically as a POW in Vietnam. Entered politics immediately after retiring from the Navy in 1981, elected to the House in 1982. Married the heiress to a Budweiser distributorship fortune. Has always been a left-leaning, big-government, establishment Republican - i.e., a RINO. Never worked in the private sector a day in his life, and has been a Washington insider since the mid-1970s.

No wonder he doesn't understand or care a fig about ordinary Americans.

It takes real hubris for him to criticize conservatives the way he does.

SilentServiceVet wrote:To me, there have been many occasions (too many) where McCain has come across as a RINO or closet Democrat. To me, he's way too close to center, center/left for my taste. I believe he is part of "what's wrong" with the Republican party. Is McCain so naive as to believe that a government that is willing to fly drones over U.S. soil would not someday be willing to kill Americans without due process in the name of homeland security? Then we would be wishing we had clarified with the WH and the DoJ whether they think this falls within the parameters of the Constitution and the 5th Amendment. I think McCain gives our government far too much credit about what they would and would not do in the future.

As for Graham, I'll call this strike one and put it in the back of my mind. Normally, I like him. But this was some serious BS on the part of both senators.

And good job to Sen. Paul for standing up to the socialist democrats and our narcissist, demagogue, communist-in-chief, Barack Hussein Obama.

+1

This question is legitimate if only because Obama ordered the drone killing of an American citizen on foreign soil already. The rest is merely geography.

ratherfish wrote:Rand is the future and I hope these two are the past..

Hey, we actually agree on something!

I'm finding more, and more frontline Republicans are starting to see the Libertarians as what the party USED to be years ago! Perhaps if enough of the two invade the political machine we can get more REAL conservative views in office.

and I ain't talking SOCIAL conservatives, I'm talking "STAY OUT OF EVERYONE'S BUSINESS" conservative, who hold that Guv'mit coin purse as tight as a Senior Citizen at Picadilly for a blue plate special!

Rev. I extremely fiscally conservative. However gun control is a social issue and non-negotiable. Valuing all human life the old, the very young and the disabled is very important to me. If we do not have a right to life, what good is liberty or pursuing happiness. The ability to raise my children as I see fit is a social issue.

Now If we are gnawing on the old gay marriage bone. Well as a social conservative with libertarian leanings. Why don't we let each state decide what their citizens want. That way Utah can have plural marriage, NY can recognize all unions between anything and anyone, in VT a child can have numerous "parents", SC can only recognize heterosexual marriage and if you don't like how it is where you live, vote with your feet or work to change the law.


If you toss us social conservatives out of the party, who are going to replace us with? Moderates like McCain? If you throw out those of us clinging to our guns and religion, do you think the R's are going to attract the greenies and lefties? We social conservatives aren't "cool" right now. However we are a fairly faithful voting block.

Remember gun control is a social issue.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

mamabearCali wrote:If you toss us social conservatives out of the party, who are going to replace us with? Moderates like McCain? If you throw out those of us clinging to our guns and religion, do you think the R's are going to attract the greenies and lefties? We social conservatives aren't "cool" right now. However we are a fairly faithful voting block.

Remember gun control is a social issue.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Social conservatives will never be thrown out of the Republican party, because the Republican party is the only party that has a platform they can agree with. The "no gay marriage, no abortions, no drug legalization, put my religion back in school" people really don't have anywhere else to go. Unfortunately, that same platform will also cause a lot of Libertarian leaning people to never vote Republican.

Yes, that is a very faithful voting block and it's a voting block that Republicans have relied on for decades. Unfortunately for Republicans, that voting block is shrinking with each election and Republican candidates can't rely on that voting block to win elections for them anymore.

ahahahaha Token Libertarian Girl gets it right again!

Republicans can either embrace the "impressionable libertarian kids", or continue to lose elections. You know, because Republicans are horrible when it comes to youth votes.

Traditional Republicans are horrible in the youth vote because quite honestly the education system has spent millions brainwashing children into little leftists. They play to young emotions, save the whales, intimacy without consequences and without limits, lets feed the hungry (with other people's $$), whirled peas, and (in college) recreational weed. The narrative that is played is full of sunshine and rainbows, except for the evil white westerners. The children are dropped off at age 5 and drink deeply from this well everyday for at minimum 8 hours a day for 13 often 17 years. Hmmmmm I wonder why those under 29 think republicans are the devil? Is it possibly because they were told so for most of their life and it takes time to undo that foolishness.


Additionally the pro-life movement is very young and very passionate. So much so that NARAL is worried about the future. So throw them off the bus at your own peril. They are not a shrinking or ageing dynamic.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Is that true that libertarians are for officially sanctioning the perversion of marriage? First I heard of that.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

WRW wrote:Is that true that libertarians are for officially sanctioning the perversion of marriage? First I heard of that.

Some are and some aren't. At the very least they agree that it's not a Federal issue. Some suggest it's a state issue, but I go further than that. The state co-opted marriage from a religious institution into a secular one for the establishment of privileged tax classes. This is why the progressive income tax taxes people based on their relationship unevenly (one reason I prefer a flat tax even if it's not perfect). This is also the reason death taxes (shouldn't be such a thing IMHO) are handled differently with spouses. Etc. I would prefer to return the definition of marriage back to the religious institutions and strip the tax code of all the special classes. Basically a straight up flat consumption tax or something similar.