Virginia’s gun owners have a stark choice for governor

John Pierce · Nov 4, 2013

Tomorrow morning Virginians will go to the polls to elect our next governor. And for gun owners the consequences couldn’t be more significant.

Terry McAuliffe has abandoned all pretense of supporting the rights of gun owners and has fully embraced the gun control dreams of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg who has pumped millions into McAuliffe’s campaign, allowing him to outspend Cuccinelli 10 to 1 in television advertising.

This influx of New York money has allowed McAuliffe to stay afloat despite the scandals that continue to rock his campaign. It has also encouraged him to reveal his disdain for gun owners.

Politicians such as McAuliffe have historically claimed to support the Second Amendment right up to the point where they are elected, at which time they can drop the act and pursue their true legislative agenda. In fact, McAuliffe himself originally followed this playbook by buying a shotgun earlier this year so that he could claim to be a ‘gun owner’ when speaking to ill-informed voters.

But that is no longer the case.

Excerpt ... Read more at Monachus Lex.

Grapeshot · Nov 4, 2013

C u c c i n e l l i

My reply reposted from Monachus Lex:

This may well be the single most important election in Virginia in decades – the very future of gun rights, the progress we have fought so hard to obtain, is at stake + the message that will be sent loud and clear to other states.

This is NOT an off election year. You either vote for freedom or stay at home and give Virginia up into the hands MaAuliffe/Bloomberg.
On a cool and crisp November morn, you will have the opportunity to make your voices heard. Don’t waste it – VOTE!

Repeater · Nov 4, 2013

McAuliffe lacks good character

What ought to be of concern are the IOU's the Progressives will demand if he's elected:

I.O.U.’s Give the Democrat an Edge in Virginia

But Mr. McAuliffe also seems to have learned from his first run for governor of Virginia in 2009, when he was tagged as a carpetbagger and lost in the Democratic primary. In the years since, he has applied his famously effective scratch-my-back skills to the state’s Democratic hierarchy, which rewarded him by preventing a primary challenge this year.

“He’s been the highlight of fund-raisers, hundreds of them all over the state in the last four years,” said Richard Saslaw, the Democratic leader in the State Senate.

As a political moneyman, Mr. McAuliffe was known for a Barnum-like exuberance, with Al Gore once lightly mocking him as “the greatest fund-raiser in the history of the universe.” This year he has far outdone his rival. His campaign has collected $34.4 million, compared with Mr. Cuccinelli’s $19.7 million, according to the nonpartisan Virginia Public Access Project.

...

After his humiliating defeat in the 2009 Democratic primary, Mr. McAuliffe sought to ingratiate himself with party officials statewide, writing checks from his own fortune for about $140,000 to scores of state candidates. The amounts were not huge — $500 to $15,000 — but they made an impact.

“It tells people, ‘I care enough to do the little things, the important things, and to let you know I’m watching and I care about what happens to you,’ ” said David Marsden, a state senator who was a beneficiary. “When your birthday comes around, it’s just a matter of when he’s going to call you.”

Even so, early polls last winter showed Mr. Cuccinelli leading Mr. McAuliffe, whom many Democrats viewed as a weak candidate. Other contenders heard from supporters that they should get in the race. One was Tom Perriello, a former congressman and a progressive star among Democrats.

Several Virginia Democrats said friends of Mr. McAuliffe helped persuade Mr. Perriello not to run in a primary against him. One longtime Democrat, who declined to be identified while talking about private discussions, said it was made clear to Mr. Perriello that Mr. McAuliffe would have the strong backing of the Clintons. Mr. Perriello considered running but passed.

davidmcbeth · Nov 4, 2013

Grapeshot said:
My reply reposted from Monachus Lex:

This may well be the single most important election in Virginia in decades – the very future of gun rights, the progress we have fought so hard to obtain, is at stake + the message that will be sent loud and clear to other states.

This is NOT an off election year. You either vote for freedom or stay at home and give Virginia up into the hands MaAuliffe/Bloomberg.
On a cool and crisp November morn, you will have the opportunity to make your voices heard. Don’t waste it – VOTE!

Vote early, vote often ! Good luck.

sparkman2 · Nov 4, 2013

Thinking out loud

I was just thinking, and some may say that is dangerous, but I was just pondering if someone who had a lot of money(Bloomberg) would finance a third party candidate to run knowing that a third party candidate would siphon votes away from the Cooch and practically ensure a victory for McAuliffe? I guess tomorrow after Terry is elected, he can return the favor to Bloomberg by regulating guns like the do in New York and we all know how well that turned out for the citizens there.

Repeater · Nov 4, 2013

Would Sarvis approve?

Another analysis wondering if Sarvis is really libertarian:

Is Virginia Gubernatorial Candidate Robert Sarvis a Libertarian-In-Name-Only?

Despite going through George Mason’s program, he doesn’t sound like he shares their views, telling Reason: “I’m not into the whole Austrian type, strongly libertarian economics, I like more mainstream economics and would have been happy to go elsewhere.” That makes sense, given that he’s endorsed more transportation taxes, too – including higher gas taxes and instituting a vehicle-miles driven tax in the state.

That last position is particularly nonsensical to me: a VMT, which generally requires a government GPS to be installed in your car to track your miles driven, is about the most anti-libertarian transportation tax you can think of – even those radical libertarians at Brookings think it’s a bad idea, and it was one of the potential bad ideas in McDonnell’s transportation plan that got killed over it ...

It appears the same idea is being promoted in California by a former Soviet central planner:

Soviet Planner Behind California’s Pay-Per-Mile Scanner and Tax

The California bureaucrat behind a big brother plan to track vehicles and “tax by the mile” worked as a government transportation planner in the former USSR.

Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), who told the Los Angeles Times “This really is a must for our nation. It is not a matter of something we might choose to do,” worked for the Moscow Metro Corporation, according to his official SCAG biography.

Is Sarvis a fraud?

Grapeshot · Nov 4, 2013

Repeater said:
--snipped--

Is Sarvis a fraud?

A mole, a red herring, a shill? Don't see any evidence of any that, but he could not help McAuliffe more if he were - the effect is the same.

mpguy · Nov 4, 2013

Anyone going to be able to oc where they vote?

So...
Light'em Up!

peter nap · Nov 4, 2013

mpguy said:
Anyone going to be able to oc where they vote?

So...
Light'em Up!

I did:lol:

I OC'ed to my mailbox to send my absentee ballot!

blahpony · Nov 4, 2013

Not me. My voting location is a school.

HearseGuy · Nov 4, 2013

mpguy said:
Anyone going to be able to oc where they vote?

So...
Light'em Up!

How bout if your voting location is a church?

77zach · Nov 4, 2013

Amerikans love their slavery. Enjoy Terry.

mpguy · Nov 4, 2013

HearseGuy said:
How bout if your voting location is a church?

§ 18.2-283. Carrying dangerous weapon to place of religious worship.
If any person carry any gun, pistol, bowie knife, dagger or other dangerous weapon, without good and sufficient reason, to a place of worship while a meeting for religious purposes is being held at such place he shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor.

A lot of people I know Cc to church, to skip the hassle. YMMV.

Mine is Suffolk executive airport. Which is not listed as a air carrier airport.

So...
Light'em Up!

marshaul · Nov 4, 2013

The saddest part of about this discussion is the concept of Sarvis "siphoning votes from Cuccinelli".

False. Cuccinelli lost my vote totally of his own accord, by being unelectable and un-endorsable. He is an adversary of every form of liberty I value, to an identical degree as McAuliffe. He is not even, by any stretch of the imagination, an objectively pro-gun candidate (I would classify him as a staunch anti).

This has nothing to do with Bloomberg, or any third party candidates. It has nothing to do with carpetbaggers or out-of-state influence. The problem, which y'all are in deep denial of, is that the GOP is an institution deeply opposed to liberty, which advances candidates who do not belong anywhere near the office they seek.

The GOP is so bad in these regards, that the simple act of installing a slick opposition candidate with effective fundraising ensures a Democratic victory.

Republicans and GOP shills have nobody but themselves to blame for the outcome tomorrow. The GOP is a broken, valueless and meritless institution in the process of self-destruction, and the sooner it is allowed to die, the better.

Citizen · Nov 4, 2013

False premise, John. By defining the choices you define the argument.

There is a third choice: don't vote. I will not vote to afflict my fellow Virginians with either of them. There is nobody I hate so much I would willingly sic a politician on them.

I do not consent to be [STRIKE]governed[/STRIKE] ruled by the likes of them.

I'm not going to vote for McAuliffe because of his obvious ruling-class criminality. And, just because Cooch made pleasant sounds about an issue I do care about, does not mean I'm suddenly blind to everything else.

I can understand others who simply must vote defensively. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it. However, I can also understand growing some courage and intellectual honesty and refusing to play along with the current system.

Separately, and more importantly, none of you--not one--has standing as my equal to govern me without my consent. You do not have it. I do not give it. I will extend you the same courtesy--I will not try to govern/rule you without your consent.

77zach · Nov 4, 2013

marshaul said:
The problem, which y'all are in deep denial of, is that the GOP is an institution deeply opposed to liberty, which advances candidates who do not belong anywhere near the office they seek.

The GOP is so bad in these regards, that the simple act of installing a slick opposition candidate with effective fundraising ensures a Democratic victory.

Another irony is that the GOP grew the federal leviathan just as much as the Democrats. Now, all those federal workers, many living and voting in Virginia, are going to push McAuliffe into office!

I have connections to Virginia and I don't see why everyone is panicking. It means nothing good happens as it relates to guns. But this doesn't mean that bad things happen, that is going to depend on the general assembly.

marshaul · Nov 4, 2013

Citizen said:
There is a third choice: don't vote. I will not vote to afflict my fellow Virginians with either of them. There is nobody I hate so much I would willingly sic a politician on them.

The fourth choice, a vote for Sarvis, has a low probability of siccing a politician on anyone, plus it helps further the goal of getting alternate views into the mainstream of political discourse, by helping to establish the LP as a "bonafide" political party.

Now, in some ways that may still be a defensive vote (there's something to be said for not siccing anybody – including the libertarian – on your neighbors), but I don't feel it's wholly abandoning principle either.

Just a thought.

marshaul · Nov 4, 2013

77zach said:
Another irony is that the GOP grew the federal leviathan just as much as the Democrats. Now, all those federal workers, many living and voting in Virginia, are going to push McAuliffe into office!

Truly and powerfully ironic. Thanks for that little observation.

I have connections to Virginia and I don't see why everyone is panicking. It means nothing good happens as it relates to guns. But this doesn't mean that bad things happen, that is going to depend on the general assembly.

I agree. There is no reason to panic. Plus, The Cooch is still an anti, so it's not like we would have many any progress under him anyway, for he publicly opposes all the reforms we need to make.

Citizen · Nov 4, 2013

marshaul said:
The fourth choice, a vote for Sarvis, has a low probability of siccing a politician on anyone, plus it helps further the goal of getting alternate views into the mainstream of political discourse, by helping to establish the LP as a "bonafide" political party.

Now, in some ways that may still be a defensive vote (there's something to be said for not siccing anybody – including the libertarian – on your neighbors), but I don't feel it's wholly abandoning principle either.

Just a thought.

Good points. But, I'm finding Sarvis ain't all that much a libertarian, neither.

marshaul · Nov 4, 2013

Citizen said:
Good points. But, I'm finding Sarvis ain't all that much a libertarian, neither.

That may be. I'd be curious what reasons you have for saying that – I'm operating under the assumption that they're better than the intellectually dishonest reasons I've seen given in the hit pieces floating around.

I will grant you that the guy seems fairly "un-radical" compared to myself, and that the implies a lessened degree of libertarianism (for instance, it could be argued that the only truly libertarian position is to oppose taxation outright), but as a reform candidate his platform seems practicable and a big step in the right direction.

Virginia’s gun owners have a stark choice for governor

Administrator

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Founder's Club Member

Campaign Veteran