Which Senatorial Candidate has the best position on gun rights and the 2A?

Thundar · Aug 27, 2014

The real invalid premise

JamesCanby said:
There.... fixed it for you.

The only invalid premise in this whole discussion is your reliance on the idea that [ Gilespie ] has any chance of winning this election. .

There.... fixed it for you James!

My fix was what is inside the [brackets]

JamesCanby · Aug 27, 2014

marshaul said:
Congratulations. That will be the first and last time you get so lucky.

I possess no idea that Sarvis has any chance of winning this election. I am certain he will not.

In case you had any doubts that your position is implicitly dependent on the unstated premise that your vote has a chance of affecting the outcome, see this little bit of projection here.

Once you accept that your vote will never be the deciding vote, all of a sudden you don't need your candidate to win to justify voting for him. You only need him to be the most moral candidate.

I, obviously, will be adding my vote to those who understand the reality and necessity of electing a candidate who best reflects our interests and who can actually achieve election. You and others may feel free to cast your vote on someone who cannot win and who, therefore, will be no more useful to you than having him buy a commiseration round of beer for his few supporters after the election. You will have made a statement, but your interests will not be furthered in the legislature. Seems kind of Pyrrhic to me.

Thundar · Aug 27, 2014

Repeater said:
Potent commentary follows:

[size=+1]Moderation in Va. Senate race will advance special interests, not principles[/size]

I stand with David. The "Lesser of Two Evils" is obsolete.

+100000 That is a big AMEN, Repeater.

Gilespie does not respond to VCDL survey. Eric Cantor does not respond to the VCDL survey. hmmmm, maybe there is again room for gun rights voters to stand and be noticed in Virginia.

marshaul · Aug 27, 2014

JamesCanby said:
I, obviously, will be adding my vote to those who understand the reality and necessity of electing a candidate who best reflects our interests and who can actually achieve election. You and others may feel free to cast your vote on someone who cannot win and who, therefore, will be no more useful to you than having him buy a commiseration round of beer for his few supporters after the election. You will have made a statement, but your interests will not be furthered in the legislature. Seems kind of Pyrrhic to me.

Again, you are operating under the implicit premise that your vote has any chance of seeing your interests furthered (or not) by the legislature. This is simply not so. Whether or not the GOP wins and manages to "further your interests" is completely independent of your vote. Similarly, whether Sarvis wins and "furthers my interests" is completely independent of my vote.

Win or lose, your vote is no more "useful" to a GOP candidate than mine is to a libertarian.

And that's completely ignoring the fact that the GOP is absolutely corrupt and self-serving, and consistently fails to further the interests of anybody (even so-called conservatives, among whose number I do not count myself) but the political class.

Tess · Aug 27, 2014

JamesCanby said:
No matter where your mouth is, you and I both know that Sarvis has NO CHANCE at being elected senator in 2014 and his presence on the ballot will only serve to dilute the results. Better that the Virginia Libertarian party spend their time at building a real voter base with candidates that have proven they are worthy of being elected to even the least offices in the neighborhood, city or county before trying to win state-wide offices.

I heard that same "dilute the results" phrase for the Virginia gubernatorial election.

IN MY MIND, that implies that the votes would otherwise go to one of the equally atrocious candidates. I can state unequivocally that last November, that was not the case; while I can only speak to my vote, I know others who publicly stated they would rather "throw a vote away, if that's what it is" than vote for either of the two.

Look at this year. We get Warner, who's proven himself no friend to us, or Gillespie, who isn't willing to answer a basic question about his stance. I'm not sure either is worthy of my vote there either, regardless of whether a third-party candidate might or might not be.

Does there not come a time when we have to speak? If not at election time, then when?

marshaul · Aug 27, 2014

Tess said:
Does there not come a time when we have to speak? If not at election time, then when?

Exactly. And the lack of representation of my views (including on the RKBA) in government is one of the things I most wish to speak about. The two-party quagmire ensures the creeping trend towards ever more government, ever more laws. When else should I convey my dissatisfaction to government, if not via the ballot?

The GOP has not earned my vote, not by a country mile.

va_tazdad · Aug 27, 2014

JamesCanby said:
It was "unstated," Marshaul, because I I neither stated it nor was it my intention to characterize my vote as the deciding vote. Please don't assign implications to my postings.

In my opinion, one should have to have demonstrated one's ability as an effective legislator in local office before aspiring to a statewide position. In the last six years we have seen the damage that an untested, untried and inexperienced candidate can cause just because a bloc of voters elected him for all of the wrong reasons.

It is not irrational to expect that we will elect people who have demonstrated their intellect, positions and capabilities through being elected to offices with increasing scopes of responsibility.

No matter where your mouth is, you and I both know that Sarvis has NO CHANCE at being elected senator in 2014 and his presence on the ballot will only serve to dilute the results. Better that the Virginia Libertarian party spend their time at building a real voter base with candidates that have proven they are worthy of being elected to even the least offices in the neighborhood, city or county before trying to win state-wide offices.

In regard to Sarvis, I must agree with you. Voting for him with his lack of experience would be as bad as electing a community organizer to be president, and America has seen that disaster played out.

Some have faith in him, but I just don't see it and another disaster representing Virginia is unacceptable. Warner and Kaine have represented us badly enough.

That said, this is America, and people have the right to vote as they believe.

marshaul · Aug 27, 2014

Experience? Experience means political success, which means (today) Democrat or Republican. And it is precisely these professional politicians who have become corrupt and unrepresentative of the American people.

As of today, experience is about the worst thing you could ask for in a candidate. It doesn't take a lot of experience to veto heavily and spend frugally.

Have Gun - Will Carry · Aug 28, 2014

marshaul said:
Experience? Experience means political success, which means (today) Democrat or Republican. And it is precisely these professional politicians who have become corrupt and unrepresentative of the American people.

As of today, experience is about the worst thing you could ask for in a candidate. It doesn't take a lot of experience to veto heavily and spend frugally.

Very well said! Mind if I quote you on that?

marshaul · Aug 28, 2014

Have Gun - Will Carry said:
Very well said! Mind if I quote you on that?

Of course you may.

OC for ME · Aug 28, 2014

marshaul said:
Experience? Experience means political success, which means (today) Democrat or Republican. And it is precisely these professional politicians who have become corrupt and unrepresentative of the American people.

As of today, experience is about the worst thing you could ask for in a candidate. It doesn't take a lot of experience to veto heavily and spend frugally.

This right here is the money phrase.

It takes very little effort, virtually none, to say no. Yet, the intestinal fortitude to stand by so little effort exerted is very rare.

va_tazdad · Aug 28, 2014

marshaul said:
Experience? Experience means political success, which means (today) Democrat or Republican. And it is precisely these professional politicians who have become corrupt and unrepresentative of the American people.

As of today, experience is about the worst thing you could ask for in a candidate. It doesn't take a lot of experience to veto heavily and spend frugally.

Not necessarily. If someone has experience in government at an executive level and business experience and success, that will work a whole lot better than someone without a clue that has never been in government.

Yes, using a veto doesn't take experience, but knowing WHEN to use it does. NObama has "none of the above". Never been a business owner, never been an executive, and can't even spell veto.

3 strikes is an out, and Sarvis is going down for the 3rd time. If he is your choice, so be it, but don't act surprised when he loses again.

OC for ME · Aug 28, 2014

Does Sarvis have kids? If so he is more than qualified to say 'no' and when it is appropriate to say 'no.' Also, and to know how and when to be frugal. I do it every day, my wife better equipped than I. If the issue is a matter of scale, well, adding several zeros to a budgetary line item does not mean that the decision is now very complex.

JamesCanby · Aug 28, 2014

Tess said:
I heard that same "dilute the results" phrase for the Virginia gubernatorial election.

IN MY MIND, that implies that the votes would otherwise go to one of the equally atrocious candidates. I can state unequivocally that last November, that was not the case; while I can only speak to my vote, I know others who publicly stated they would rather "throw a vote away, if that's what it is" than vote for either of the two.

Look at this year. We get Warner, who's proven himself no friend to us, or Gillespie, who isn't willing to answer a basic question about his stance. I'm not sure either is worthy of my vote there either, regardless of whether a third-party candidate might or might not be.

Does there not come a time when we have to speak? If not at election time, then when?

IMO, the "time when [Libertarians] have to speak" is after they have proven that they are a real force in local, county, state and national politics. Get some people elected to SOMEthing rather than trying to take the top seats ANYwhere. With only a "desire" and no track record as to being an effective legislator, all we have to go on are the candidate's statements -- and we see where that got America in 2008...

Tess · Aug 28, 2014

JamesCanby said:
IMO, the "time when [Libertarians] have to speak" is after they have proven that they are a real force in local, county, state and national politics. Get some people elected to SOMEthing rather than trying to take the top seats ANYwhere. With only a "desire" and no track record as to being an effective legislator, all we have to go on are the candidate's statements -- and we see where that got America in 2008...

Well, I'm not a "Libertarian" (rather, I'm libertarian) ... but I'm also not willing to wait that long to say to Washington that the status quo is not acceptable. In this particular election, both Warner and Gillespie are status quo.

Mind you, I'm still leaning toward a write-in for "None of the Above"; my concerns are not with Sarvis, who is less-than-desirable by a long shot, but we must speak.

Thundar · Aug 28, 2014

JamesCanby said:
no track record as to being an effective legislator, all we have to go on are the candidate's statements --

Is no track record better than the Republican Track Record? Republicans = Gun Control ACT of 1968, FOPA, Lautenberg Ammendment

Thundar · Aug 28, 2014

Tess said:
Well, I'm not a "Libertarian" (rather, I'm libertarian) ... but I'm also not willing to wait that long to say to Washington that the status quo is not acceptable. In this particular election, both Warner and Gillespie are status quo.

Mind you, I'm still leaning toward a write-in for "None of the Above"; my concerns are not with Sarvis, who is less-than-desirable by a long shot, but we must speak.

Tess,

Bravo! To use a Wizard of Oz analogy, no matter how many times the wizard says "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", recognizing that the perpetual "only two parties matter" mantra is like the inquisitive puppy dog Toto pulling back the curtain to expose the fraud that the wizard is perpetrating on his audience.

You may not be a Sarvis supporter yet, but at least you refuse to follow the yellow brick road. (The yellow brick road leads to tyranny)

marshaul · Aug 28, 2014

OC for ME said:
Does Sarvis have kids? If so he is more than qualified to say 'no' and when it is appropriate to say 'no.' Also, and to know how and when to be frugal. I do it every day, my wife better equipped than I. If the issue is a matter of scale, well, adding several zeros to a budgetary line item does not mean that the decision is now very complex.

Hah! It didn't even occur to me, but "veto heavily and spend frugally" could pretty much be considered the definition of responsible parenting.

I guess that means legislatures are like so many children. :lol:

Repeater · Aug 28, 2014

Thundar said:
+100000 That is a big AMEN, Repeater.

Gilespie does not respond to VCDL survey. Eric Cantor does not respond to the VCDL survey. hmmmm, maybe there is again room for gun rights voters to stand and be noticed in Virginia.

Everyone here remembers Jerry Kilgore, and Tucker Martin, when Kilgore ran for Governor, right?

“Jerry Kilgore is the one candidate that will stand for the Second Amendment and for the honor and freedom to own guns,” said Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive vice president, who joined Mr. Kilgore on a statewide fly-around tour to announce the endorsement.

But some grass-roots members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) say they will not vote for Mr. Kilgore Nov. 8 because one of his staffers said the VCDL’s president has “no credibility” on Second Amendment issues.

“I am pro-life, reeling from the great tax hike of 2004, a staunch Second Amendment defender and wild horses could not drag me to vote for Kilgore,” said Mike Downey, a Colonial Beach resident.

Kilgore spokesman Tucker Martin said the candidate has “great respect” for VCDL members but would not submit the survey because “their president, Philip Van Cleave, unfortunately has no credibility on Second Amendment issues.”

Every Virginian in the new VCDL video has more street-cred than little-boy Tucker.

JoeSparky · Aug 28, 2014

va_tazdad said:
Not necessarily. If someone has experience in government at an executive level and business experience and success, that will work a whole lot better than someone without a clue that has never been in government.

Yes, using a veto doesn't take experience, but knowing WHEN to use it does. NObama has "none of the above". Never been a business owner, never been an executive, and can't even spell veto.

3 strikes is an out, and Sarvis is going down for the 3rd time. If he is your choice, so be it, but don't act surprised when he loses again.

Since it seems so often for anyone disagreeing with the current president and those that support him is called RACISM, would him exercising his VETO power also be RACIST?

Which Senatorial Candidate has the best position on gun rights and the 2A?

Regular Member

Activist Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Founder's Club Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Activist Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Centurion