Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Who's in the 7th Congressional district? Brat -vs- Trammel

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dinwiddie, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    213

    Who's in the 7th Congressional district? Brat -vs- Trammel

    Not sure who all is on your ballot in November, but there is a race for Congress. Eric Cantors seat is vacant after the election back in June, thanks to Dave Brat.

    I'm not a big follower of politics but its my understanding that Dave Brat is pro-gun, endorsed by the NRA and Gun Owners of America. Can't say I've heard anything from the VCDL about him.

    Not sure about how his opponent Jack Trammel view guns.

    I'm sure there will be things that you agree with and disagree with about both guys.

    I'm not in that district so I won't be voting for that race.

    I spoke with Brat about a month ago when I found out about his view on guns. I invited him to come to my tables at the gun show in Richmond Nov 1-2. He just might take me up on my offer Saturday Nov 1st.

    Not a bad idea to have a pro-gun member of Congress on our side here in Virginia.


    Oh.... if any of you guy have any guns, ammo or accessories you want to sell come to the VaGunTrader tables at the Richmond show Nov, 1-2 ......free to use the tables.

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,604
    Quote Originally Posted by VaGunTrader View Post
    --snipped--


    Oh.... if any of you guy have any guns, ammo or accessories you want to sell come to the VaGunTrader tables at the Richmond show Nov, 1-2 ......free to use the tables.
    That is a generous offer
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    James Carr Gun owner and carrier is on the ballot for 7th CD

    Great Libertarian candidate for the 7th Congressional district James Carr.

    Link: http://www.jamescarrforcongress.org/gun-rights.html

    Gun Rights
    I recently read an article touting the need for better gun control laws in this country and had to shake my head in disbelief at the lack of understanding (and slight disconnect from reality) evidenced within those 750 words. Just to be clear, I agree with the idea that there should be limits on how a weapon of any kind may be used but feel that we have far too many laws, which focus on the possession or type of a weapon instead of what is done with it. In fact you could cover the necessary intent of many laws by enforcing the simplest ones. It is illegal to kill someone except in self-defense. Why then must there be a law that says it is illegal to kill someone with a gun except in self-defense? Additionally, why would there be laws preventing a person from being able to defend oneself if it is legal to do so?
    .
    First, let’s discuss laws related to the commission of a crime. Is it any worse for society to have someone who committed murder with a gun on the streets than someone who committed murder with a rock? The end result is the same: someone else is dead. So why should the punishment be any different? To that end, why should it matter if I threaten to kill someone by pumping my fist at them or by showing them a gun? I have indicated the same intent in both cases with the only difference being I have proposed a specific tool to accomplish the task in the second. Some will argue that the punishment should be more severe because the level of fear raised by the different methods of threatening can be significantly different. While it is easy to agree that a gun is clearly more easily capable of accomplishing the threatened task, it is much more difficult to agree that we should litigate differently based on a person’s subjective reaction to a situation. Not everyone will have the same fear response to seeing a gun.
    .
    I will address issues with our justice system and the political influences that permeate it at a later time, but I will say here that, if we enforced existing laws and severely limited the loop-holes that some lawyers abuse to prevent criminals from being punished, we would find that violence drops much faster than by restricting law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. More energy is spent each year on preventing your average American from purchasing a firearm than is spent on eliminating the ways in which a criminal might avoid punishment. To me, there is something very wrong about this.
    .
    Now let’s discuss the ability to defend oneself or one’s family. A law-abiding citizen will obey a law that prohibits the carrying of a firearm, but a criminal does not care if there are additional laws on this topic. They have already decided that laws do not apply to them. In fact, additional laws restricting individuals from carrying a weapon only serve to make the criminal more secure in the knowledge that their victims will not have the means to defend themselves from attack. There have been numerous studies showing the direct correlation between restrictive gun laws and violent crime rates; the more laws, the more violent crime (please do some research before responding that this is not true; it is). When the general populace is disarmed, criminals become more brazen because there is minimal chance that they will come across victims that can defend themselves.
    .
    One of the issues with the laws around firearms that truly perplexes me is that the system allows criminals who have been stopped by a victim (or the criminal’s family) to retaliate against the victim. There have been many stories over the last few years illustrating this. If a person breaks into your house at night, has a weapon and comes into your bedroom, it is a logical assumption that they intend to do you serious harm. Why, then, should they (or their family) be able to sue you if you seriously injure or kill them? The victim did not got into the criminal’s home and threatened them, yet some lawyers with no commitment to justice have been able to convince a judge or jury that the criminal should be rewarded for their violation of the law with a monetary settlement. I truly believe that there should be significant reform in this area and that laws regarding “castle doctrine” should be expanded to cover your entire property--as well as your vehicle (car-jackers, beware). Instead of giving thousands of dollars to a now-paralyzed criminal, perpetrator should be put on trial for the break-in and sent to jail. The preparedness of the victim should not be a reprieve from punishment for the criminal.
    .
    On a personal note and without any malicious intent or desire to play the part of the hero, I carry my sidearm with me whenever it is legal and safe to do so. No one has ever known that I am armed except for my wife, and I’ve never had cause to change that. Being a law-abiding citizen, I have only recently been able to carry my concealed weapon into a restaurant when we go out to eat since Virginia was, until this past July, one of the states that prevented concealed carry in any establishment that serves alcohol, regardless of whether the permit holder was drinking or not. I no longer have my customary single beer or glass of wine with dinner and am fine with that (doesn’t hurt to cut out those calories anyway). Many gun control advocates tried to convince those making the laws that this change would lead to a “Wild West” atmosphere in every restaurant in town. This did not happen. and I am grateful that rationality won out over unsubstantiated fear-mongering on this particular issue.
    .
    In closing I’d like to say that I truly do hope that I never am put in a situation that requires me to use deadly force to protect myself, my family or another victim. But I would do so without guilt if there were no other way to ensure lives were saved. I detest the idea of killing another human being but would rather live knowing that I was forced to kill a criminal than with the knowledge that I could have prevented the death of an innocent person and did nothing.
    Last edited by Thundar; 10-26-2014 at 01:02 PM.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    Great Libertarian candidate for the 7th Congressional district James Carr.

    Link: http://www.jamescarrforcongress.org/gun-rights.html
    Not the best libertarian viewpoint of gun rights .. seems to spend his time talking about self defense..almost exclusively.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,171
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Not the best libertarian viewpoint of gun rights .. seems to spend his time talking about self defense..almost exclusively.
    Then don't vote for him.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by va_tazdad View Post
    Then don't vote for him.
    Then who would u suggest?

  7. #7
    Regular Member scouser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    1,232
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Not the best libertarian viewpoint of gun rights .. seems to spend his time talking about self defense..almost exclusively.
    Quote Originally Posted by va_tazdad View Post
    Then don't vote for him.
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Then who would u suggest?
    someone in your own district

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,604
    Originally Posted by davidmcbeth

    Then who would u suggest?


    Quote Originally Posted by scouser View Post
    someone in your own district
    Point extremely well made Scouser
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Not the best libertarian viewpoint of gun rights .. seems to spend his time talking about self defense..almost exclusively.
    As strange as this may seem, I agree with you completely David.
    .
    I posted the gun rights position of Carr so that others who will vote in the 7th Congressional District of Virginia could at least see a more pro gun candidates position of gun rights. He has mostly economic freedom and pro liberty positions. His gun rights position does ramble, and ramble in only one direction.
    .
    His position is, however much more pro gun and pro liberty than you would get from either the democrat or republican wing of the big government party.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  10. #10
    Regular Member wrearick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Va.
    Posts
    635
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    Great Libertarian candidate for the 7th Congressional district James Carr.

    Link: http://www.jamescarrforcongress.org/gun-rights.html

    Gun Rights
    I recently read an article touting the need for better gun control laws in this country and had to shake my head in disbelief at the lack of understanding (and slight disconnect from reality) evidenced within those 750 words. Just to be clear, I agree with the idea that there should be limits on how a weapon of any kind may be used but feel that we have far too many laws, which focus on the possession or type of a weapon instead of what is done with it. In fact you could cover the necessary intent of many laws by enforcing the simplest ones. It is illegal to kill someone except in self-defense. Why then must there be a law that says it is illegal to kill someone with a gun except in self-defense? Additionally, why would there be laws preventing a person from being able to defend oneself if it is legal to do so?
    .
    First, let’s discuss laws related to the commission of a crime. Is it any worse for society to have someone who committed murder with a gun on the streets than someone who committed murder with a rock? The end result is the same: someone else is dead. So why should the punishment be any different? To that end, why should it matter if I threaten to kill someone by pumping my fist at them or by showing them a gun? I have indicated the same intent in both cases with the only difference being I have proposed a specific tool to accomplish the task in the second. Some will argue that the punishment should be more severe because the level of fear raised by the different methods of threatening can be significantly different. While it is easy to agree that a gun is clearly more easily capable of accomplishing the threatened task, it is much more difficult to agree that we should litigate differently based on a person’s subjective reaction to a situation. Not everyone will have the same fear response to seeing a gun.
    .
    I will address issues with our justice system and the political influences that permeate it at a later time, but I will say here that, if we enforced existing laws and severely limited the loop-holes that some lawyers abuse to prevent criminals from being punished, we would find that violence drops much faster than by restricting law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. More energy is spent each year on preventing your average American from purchasing a firearm than is spent on eliminating the ways in which a criminal might avoid punishment. To me, there is something very wrong about this.
    .
    Now let’s discuss the ability to defend oneself or one’s family. A law-abiding citizen will obey a law that prohibits the carrying of a firearm, but a criminal does not care if there are additional laws on this topic. They have already decided that laws do not apply to them. In fact, additional laws restricting individuals from carrying a weapon only serve to make the criminal more secure in the knowledge that their victims will not have the means to defend themselves from attack. There have been numerous studies showing the direct correlation between restrictive gun laws and violent crime rates; the more laws, the more violent crime (please do some research before responding that this is not true; it is). When the general populace is disarmed, criminals become more brazen because there is minimal chance that they will come across victims that can defend themselves.
    .
    One of the issues with the laws around firearms that truly perplexes me is that the system allows criminals who have been stopped by a victim (or the criminal’s family) to retaliate against the victim. There have been many stories over the last few years illustrating this. If a person breaks into your house at night, has a weapon and comes into your bedroom, it is a logical assumption that they intend to do you serious harm. Why, then, should they (or their family) be able to sue you if you seriously injure or kill them? The victim did not got into the criminal’s home and threatened them, yet some lawyers with no commitment to justice have been able to convince a judge or jury that the criminal should be rewarded for their violation of the law with a monetary settlement. I truly believe that there should be significant reform in this area and that laws regarding “castle doctrine” should be expanded to cover your entire property--as well as your vehicle (car-jackers, beware). Instead of giving thousands of dollars to a now-paralyzed criminal, perpetrator should be put on trial for the break-in and sent to jail. The preparedness of the victim should not be a reprieve from punishment for the criminal.
    .
    On a personal note and without any malicious intent or desire to play the part of the hero, I carry my sidearm with me whenever it is legal and safe to do so. No one has ever known that I am armed except for my wife, and I’ve never had cause to change that. Being a law-abiding citizen, I have only recently been able to carry my concealed weapon into a restaurant when we go out to eat since Virginia was, until this past July, one of the states that prevented concealed carry in any establishment that serves alcohol, regardless of whether the permit holder was drinking or not. I no longer have my customary single beer or glass of wine with dinner and am fine with that (doesn’t hurt to cut out those calories anyway). Many gun control advocates tried to convince those making the laws that this change would lead to a “Wild West” atmosphere in every restaurant in town. This did not happen. and I am grateful that rationality won out over unsubstantiated fear-mongering on this particular issue.
    .
    In closing I’d like to say that I truly do hope that I never am put in a situation that requires me to use deadly force to protect myself, my family or another victim. But I would do so without guilt if there were no other way to ensure lives were saved. I detest the idea of killing another human being but would rather live knowing that I was forced to kill a criminal than with the knowledge that I could have prevented the death of an innocent person and did nothing.
    Wow, sounds reasonable to me!

  11. #11
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    This week's Style Weekly

    Pick up the new Style Weekly, available today. It has several articles, such as Dave Brat is apparently playing it safe, if you believe Style. Also, there is an Article about Carr, written by Carr himself.

    There is also a picture of the VCDL President.

    Last edited by Repeater; 10-29-2014 at 07:07 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Congressman Brat votes against CRomnibus

    One of the heroes to stand with us and against the Leaders[sic]:

    The Heroes in the House of Representatives
    The members are:

    Congressman Amash of Michigan
    Congresswoman Bachmann of Minnesota
    Congressman Brat of Virgina
    Congressman Brooks of Alabama
    Congressman Broun of Georgia
    Congressman Gohmert of TExas
    Congressman Gosar of Arizona
    Congressman Huelskamp of Kansas
    Congressman Jones of North Carolina
    Congressman Jordan of Ohio
    Congressman King of Iowa
    Congressman Labrador of Idaho
    Congressman Massie of Kentucky
    Congressman Posey of Florida
    Congressman Salmon of Arizona
    Congressman Stockman of Texas
    I certainly know how Cantor would have voted!

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,604
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    One of the heroes to stand with us and against the Leaders[sic]:

    The Heroes in the House of Representatives

    I certainly know how Cantor would have voted!
    Who?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  14. #14
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    Quote Originally Posted by scouser View Post
    someone in your own district
    Ouch! Glad to say I gave money to Brat in the primary, didn't give any to my homeboy (Rino) TX-32 Pete 'open the borders' Session. His dad, William, was a Federal Judge in El Paso and later head of FBI for a while. We knew his brother Jeff Sessions - Pete was the slimy one....
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  15. #15
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by HPmatt View Post
    Ouch! Glad to say I gave money to Brat in the primary, didn't give any to my homeboy (Rino) TX-32 Pete 'open the borders' Session. His dad, William, was a Federal Judge in El Paso and later head of FBI for a while. We knew his brother Jeff Sessions - Pete was the slimy one....
    Statement of Dave Brat on voting against the House omnibus bill
    I had two opportunities to try to prevent the omnibus bill from becoming law, and I exercised both of them. Regardless of the many policy disagreements I had with the bill, this vote ultimately wasn’t about policy for me. This bill funds an illegal act. Above all, this vote was about following the law and the Constitution.

    Without the amendment that my House colleagues and I proposed yesterday, this omnibus bill allows funding for President Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesty for approximately five million illegal immigrants.

    Despite having claimed several times that he didn’t have the authority to enact amnesty without Congress, President Obama acted anyway. Under our Constitution, the president can’t create the law; the president has to follow the law.

    I cannot vote to allow an agency of this government to commit an act that the president and the House leadership on both sides have previously agreed is illegal. Allowing the funding of executive amnesty, even just until the end of February, allows the program to be implemented and amnesty to be enacted.
    There are many other things wrong with CRomnibus, as David Codrea and GOA has pointed out. Bart did what Cantor would never have done.

    A brave man.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •