A reply from Laurie Bisch (Clark County Sherriff candidate) re/Constitutional Carry

Mudjack said:

I don't know where these "better candidates" are going to pop up from, here in our fine Masonic city of Las Vegas. I think the good ol' boys have won this town. Nothing life changing or affirming happening here in Las Vegas. It is finally becoming the Third World shithole they have always wanted it to be.

Which is why I am working hard toward getting the hell out of here and moving over to God's Country and living in Arizona, the Land of the Free.

Click to expand...

Then while you are still here in NV, at least help vote Gillispie out by voting his opposition in. In this case, the "lesser of two evils" is still a step in the right direction; when by your own words, you aren't going to get a true "better candidate."

wrightme said:

Then while you are still here in NV, at least help vote Gillispie out by voting his opposition in. In this case, the "lesser of two evils" is still a step in the right direction; when by your own words, you aren't going to get a true "better candidate."

Click to expand...

Agreed.

While we hate the thought of "lesser of two evils," sometimes it is simply a fact.

And, I must say, from what (little) I know of Laurie Bisch, she has been a supporter of 2nd Amendment (and Nevada Constitution Article 1, Section 11) rights.

In the past, she repeatedly said she would meet and discuss these issues. And she did. So, maybe you guys in the Vegas area should meet with her in person.

wrightme said:

Then while you are still here in NV, at least help vote Gillispie out by voting his opposition in. In this case, the "lesser of two evils" is still a step in the right direction; when by your own words, you aren't going to get a true "better candidate."

Click to expand...

Like I said, my candidate will check out 100% in all areas or not one of them will get my vote. I do not vote for the lesser of two evils in any case.

Don't look now, but all this compromising is precisely what got us into the trouble we're in right now.

Doing more of what doesn't work still doesn't work.

Mudjack said:

Like I said, my candidate will check out 100% in all areas or not one of them will get my vote. I do not vote for the lesser of two evils in any case.

Don't look now, but all this compromising is precisely what got us into the trouble we're in right now.

Doing more of what doesn't work still doesn't work.

Click to expand...

No-Compromise is no-progress. Are you stating that you do not vote unless a candidate is 100% of what you want? Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Your method is self-defeating, and you successfully recuse yourself from any hope for betterment. Should Gillispie get re-elected, don't bitch.

wrightme said:

No-Compromise is no-progress. Are you stating that you do not vote unless a candidate is 100% of what you want? Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Your method is self-defeating, and you successfully recuse yourself from any hope for betterment. Should Gillispie get re-elected, don't bitch.

Click to expand...

No, I am not stating that. I am however stating that a candidate will satisfy my curiosity completely before he gets my vote. Period.

And, don't look now, but the baby and the bath water were thrown out the window long ago. You can't fix Las Vegas. You can't fix the country either. It's a little late for all of that. From here on out, we are on a downhill slide all the way to the bitter end. Goodbye, America, it has been nice knowing you.

I didn't bitch when Gillespie got elected and I won't bitch if he gets elected again. Not my problem. I didn't elect him nor would I. Nor will I cheer if the Gillespie skank is replaced with the "lesser of the evil" skank. They're all skank and none of them have any business in that office.

No compromise is no progress. Well said. What part of; "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" needs to progress? I understand it perfectly. No progress necessary. Your politicians may have successfully confused you into thinking that no one knows what that amendment really means -- but they were not so successful with me. I know what it means and no, it does not need to "progress". In fact it was written so that it would not, could not "progress". It was "progress" that got us into the trouble we are in in the first place. No "progress" necessary. And when Americans finally wake up one fine day and realize that compromising like knaves and settling for the lesser of the evil instead of doing what is right is what got us into the mess we are now in -- I daresay the world will be a much better and freer place than it is now when that day comes. But I wouldn't count on it if I were you.

If anyone around here has a self-defeating method -- it's you.

The Bill of Rights was written to keep "progress" from happening to us -- again.

I hope that you will join me in stopping any and all "progress" when it comes to government.

Mudjack said:

Like I said, my candidate will check out 100% in all areas or not one of them will get my vote. I do not vote for the lesser of two evils in any case.

Click to expand...

Mudjack said:

No, I am not stating that. I am however stating that a candidate will satisfy my curiosity completely before he gets my vote. Period.

Click to expand...

So you misspoke then? It sure read as if a candidate was not 100% what you wanted, you wouldn't even vote. Another miscommunication?

When you state "do not vote for the lesser of two evils in any case," you HAVE recused yourself from the process. Granted the 'lesser of two evils' is not what we desire, but it IS 'better than status quo.'

Mudjack said:

And, don't look now, but the baby and the bath water were thrown out the window long ago. You can't fix Las Vegas. You can't fix the country either. It's a little late for all of that. From here on out, we are on a downhill slide all the way to the bitter end. Goodbye, America, it has been nice knowing you.

Click to expand...

It CAN be fixed. But it will not likely happen in my lifetime. I am working to do what I can though.

Mudjack said:

I didn't bitch when Gillespie got elected and I won't bitch if he gets elected again. Not my problem. I didn't elect him nor would I. Nor will I cheer if the Gillespie skank is replaced with the "lesser of the evil" skank. They're all skank and none of them have any business in that office.

Click to expand...

Then you are part of the problem.

Mudjack said:

No compromise is no progress. Well said. What part of; "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" needs to progress?

Click to expand...

Taking it back as it was intended, not as it is currently shown.

Mudjack said:

I understand it perfectly. No progress necessary.

Click to expand...

Yes, progress is necessary, to revert years of regress.

Mudjack said:

Your politicians may have successfully confused you into thinking that no one knows what that amendment really means -- but they were not so successful with me.

Click to expand...

They were not 'successful' with me either; otherwise I would not be a member of a gun club, post on OCDO, volunteer as a lobbyist for that gun club, research laws and court cases....

Mudjack said:

I know what it means and no, it does not need to "progress". In fact it was written so that it would not, could not "progress". It was "progress" that got us into the trouble we are in in the first place. No "progress" necessary. And when Americans finally wake up one fine day and realize that compromising like knaves and settling for the lesser of the evil instead of doing what is right is what got us into the mess we are now in -- I daresay the world will be a much better and freer place than it is now when that day comes. But I wouldn't count on it if I were you.

Click to expand...

It does need to progress back to what it should have been all the time, and which has been whittled away. IMHO, it IS getting back there, albeit slowly.

Mudjack said:

If anyone around here has a self-defeating method -- it's you.

Click to expand...

Frankly, until I mentioned what I do in this post, you really have no idea what my "method" is.

Mudjack said:

The Bill of Rights was written to keep "progress" from happening to us -- again.

Click to expand...

"progress" isn't just what has already been.

Mudjack said:

I hope that you will join me in stopping any and all "progress" when it comes to government.

Click to expand...

I hope you will join me in keeping "progress" going in the correct direction, rather than the historical direction.

wrightme said:

So you misspoke then? It sure read as if a candidate was not 100% what you wanted, you wouldn't even vote. Another miscommunication?

When you state "do not vote for the lesser of two evils in any case," you HAVE recused yourself from the process. Granted the 'lesser of two evils' is not what we desire, but it IS 'better than status quo.'

Click to expand...

Nope. It's the same as the status quo. Evil.

Mudjack said:

Nope. It's the same as the status quo. Evil.

Click to expand...

So to you, it is either black, or white? No shades of gray? Go run as an opposing candidate then.

It is most likely to be re-won the same way it was lost. With small changes in the direction WE want.

Mudjack said:

Like I said, my candidate will check out 100% in all areas or not one of them will get my vote. I do not vote for the lesser of two evils in any case.

Don't look now, but all this compromising is precisely what got us into the trouble we're in right now.

Doing more of what doesn't work still doesn't work.

Click to expand...

If you aren't willing to become part of the solution you become part of the problem... It is no different than the Reid vs Angle election, if you don't vote for Angle then you in essence help Reid... Same with this election if you don't vote for Bisch, you might as well vote for Gillespie because you are not helping AT ALL to make any changes in the current problematic Govt...

Arguing this with you and your defeatist attitude is pointless so I will no longer engage in it.

SCJeffro said:

If you aren't willing to become part of the solution you become part of the problem... It is no different than the Reid vs Angle election, if you don't vote for Angle then you in essence help Reid... Same with this election if you don't vote for Bisch, you might as well vote for Gillespie because you are not helping AT ALL to make any changes in the current problematic Govt...

Arguing this with you and your defeatist attitude is pointless so I will no longer engage in it.

Click to expand...

Your the one with the defeatist attitude. Your plan can't work--and you don't even seem to know it.

If Bisch is just as bad as Gillespie and vice-versa, how to you figure it's going to do any good to get Gillespie out and get her in?

Your argument makes literally no sense.

They're both the same, i.e., evil, yet vote for one evil to get the other evil out? What the hell?

That's like saying, I don't want Thing I running wild in my living room -- but Thing II will be just fine.

Might just as well leave things the way they are. Save the gas money it will cost to get down to the voting booth.

wrightme said:

So to you, it is either black, or white? No shades of gray? Go run as an opposing candidate then.

It is most likely to be re-won the same way it was lost. With small changes in the direction WE want.

Click to expand...

Correct. Black or white and no shades of gray.

No thanks on running for sheriff. Not my style.

No chance of re-winning. Americans have snoozed, and so they lose. Too little too late. Nothing has gone or is going to go in the direction YOU want. That's my prediction anyway.

Mudjack said:

Your the one with the defeatist attitude. Your plan can't work--and you don't even seem to know it.

If Bisch is just as bad as Gillespie and vice-versa, how to you figure it's going to do any good to get Gillespie out and get her in?

Click to expand...

Where is that a known? If she IS just as bad, then she isn't "the lesser of two evils," is she.

Mudjack said:

Your argument makes literally no sense.

Click to expand...

No, it is your black/white interpretation that makes literally no sense.

Mudjack said:

They're both the same, i.e., evil, yet vote for one evil to get the other evil out? What the hell?

Click to expand...

Based upon what? In what way are they 'both the same?'

Mudjack said:

That's like saying, I don't want Thing I running wild in my living room -- but Thing II will be just fine.

Click to expand...

Not at all. They were literally the same; not lesser or greater, but the same. Poor example.

Mudjack said:

Might just as well leave things the way they are. Save the gas money it will cost to get down to the voting booth.

Click to expand...

So is it your contention that Bisch is the same as the incumbent? What do you base that upon?

Mudjack said:

Correct. Black or white and no shades of gray.

No thanks on running for sheriff. Not my style.

No chance of re-winning. Americans have snoozed, and so they lose. Too little too late. Nothing has gone or is going to go in the direction YOU want. That's my prediction anyway.

Click to expand...

I for one am doing what I can to prove you wrong. Too bad you are seemingly unwilling to do such also.

Mudjack said:

I'd ask Laurie Bisch for more clarification. Her words were a little disturbing. Being endorsed by the NRA should have given most people the first clue and made their inner alarm signals sound off. I know they did mine. COMMENT REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Bashing other gun rights groups

I know next to nothing about Laurie Bisch other than having read a few slogans and heard a couple of speeches; I can't see anything in her rhetoric whatsoever that indicates she is pro 2A or pro-Constitution.

Click to expand...

Yet now you set her equal to Gillispie as evil.....

This is precisely the thing I am talking about...

wrightme said:

I for one am doing what I can to prove you wrong. Too bad you are seemingly unwilling to do such also.

Click to expand...

Spending all your time trying to prove me wrong. You just revealed it all in a nutshell.

Thank you, for helping me to emphasize my point. You're a genius.

Mudjack said:

Spending all your time trying to prove me wrong. You just revealed it all in a nutshell.

Thank you, for helping me to emphasize my point. You're a genius.

Click to expand...

LOL, that was directed specifically at your view that the country is too far gone to save. Sorry I worded it in a way that allowed you to misconstrue it.

wrightme said:

Yet now you set her equal to Gillispie as evil.....

Click to expand...

From what I know so far about Bisch, yes, she is cast in the same mold as Gillespie.

But, just to be fair, my conclusion isn't completely drawn on her just yet. I have yet to meet her and ask my questions. I'll let ya know. But, for the moment, the answer is, no, she isn't getting my vote.

Mudjack said:

No chance of re-winning. Americans have snoozed, and so they lose. Too little too late. Nothing has gone or is going to go in the direction YOU want. That's my prediction anyway.

Click to expand...

wrightme said:

I for one am doing what I can to prove your prediction wrong. Too bad you are seemingly unwilling to do such also.

Click to expand...

There, I changed it a bit so my meaning is more clear.

Mudjack said:

From what I know so far about Bisch, yes, she is cast in the same mold as Gillespie.

Click to expand...

Um, yet you claimed to know "next to nothing" about her. Don't you think you should get a little more than "next to nothing" to base your opinion upon?