New low for McAuliffe

[marshaul]

Riiight. Try 7% - even a recount won't help him.

I hope it makes you feel better; Virginia will have to wait that much longer to have some sort of alternate perspective in the political discourse.

Meanwhile, y'all still lost – which, by the way, I called.

 

[onus]

That is a pretty strong showing for a Libertarian candidate and he certainly lost the race for the Republican.

I think this a good thing. The republicans need to embrace and support true limited government and freedom and liberty and if they don't then....goodbye !!!

 

[marshaul]

he certainly lost the race for the Republican.

Nope. Everyone who might have voted Republican was too busy prophesying imminent doom, calling Cuccinelli "a staunch advocate for gun rights" (I lol'ed), and generally being hysterical to consider voting Libertarian. Hence Sarvis doing poor in the turnout compared to the polls, but Cuccinelli doing better.

 

[Grapeshot]

The laws of concern in National Forests are state laws. :banghead:

I know you know this:

The point being that the federal agency could have allowed carry but did not take that action.

Want to take any bets as to what will happen under McAuliffe?

 

[marshaul]

The point being that the federal agency could have allowed carry but did not take that action.

Um, no. The Feds do allow carry in National Forests, but permit the State to further regulate such. Virginia, in its infinite wisdom, elected to infringe upon my right with a bunch of archaic and frankly European "hunting" laws.

Despite myself and others having harped on this point repeatedly, the gun community at large is wholly uninterested in things that don't involve their precious permission slips or calling antis "staunch advocates for gun rights" (because said antis made some vague hand-waving and blithering speechifying). That is, when they're not too busy blaming libertarians and other assorted malcontents for the dismal failures of their own freedom-opposing pet party, to be interested in anything at all.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Despite myself and others having harped on this point repeatedly, the gun community at large is wholly uninterested in things that don't involve their precious permission slips or calling antis "staunch advocates for gun rights" (because said antis made some vague hand-waving and blithering speechifying). That is, when they're not too busy blaming libertarians and other assorted malcontents for the dismal failures of their own freedom-opposing pet party, to be interested in anything at all.

+1

 

[KYGlockster]

I agree with that last remark. The difference is, I imagine, that from where I sit it is the GOP – with their unelectable candidates and (more importantly) un-supportable/indefensible platform – who are playing all the Russian roulette.

I agree with you on this point. The Republicans need to stop giving us candidates that do not care about our rights the way most Republican voters believe they should. Why in the hell would Republicans give us Mitt Romney for crying out loud as a presidential candidate? This is the same situation that just happened in Virginia. Sure, had there only been a Republican and Democrat in the election the Republican probably would have won, but that wasn't the case and the Republican party screwed itself by not throwing the right candidate to the people.

I just hope that the Republican party has learned from the mistakes it has been making and gives us a real contender for 2016; if this doesn't happen I fear we will have our first lady president in 2016 -- Liberal Democrat Hillary Clinton. I would love to see a female president, but not Hillary. We all know that other parties do not have a chance at garnering enough votes to win an election, and until people get their heads right this will continue to ring true. People have to stop voting for the party and start voting for the man or woman who would best defend our rights and do what we want.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Just the tip of the iceberg I am sorry to say. Whether it is Hillary or Christie it makes no difference they are both anti gun. Nationally we probably will see nationwide gun confiscation in the next 10 years. Scalia cannot stay on the bench another 8 years, once he is replaced by a rabid anti gun judge our rights are toast.

 

[Thundar]

Um, no. The Feds do allow carry in National Forests, but permit the State to further regulate such. Virginia, in its infinite wisdom, elected to infringe upon my right with a bunch of archaic and frankly European "hunting" laws.

Despite myself and others having harped on this point repeatedly, the gun community at large is wholly uninterested in things that don't involve their precious permission slips or calling antis "staunch advocates for gun rights" (because said antis made some vague hand-waving and blithering speechifying).

^^^^This^^^^

Why Marshaul are you saying Guvna "Toll Booth Bob" and Attorney General "Screwed by the Cooch" did not do everything in their power to ensure the self executing rights of citizens of the Commonwealth were respected?

Naw, that can't be. (Unless of course they really are statists.)

 

[Repeater]

Pretty accurate analysis why Cuccinelli lost

Rick Shaftan provides a pretty strong case for Cucinelli himself being to blame for his loss. He also suggests that neither Sarvis nor Bolling contributed to Ken's loss.

Why Cuccinelli really lost

KEN HAD NO MESSAGE

KEN SPENT THE WHOLE CAMPAIGN TRYING TO WIN THE VOTES HE WASN’T GOING TO GET

KEN TURNED HIS AG POSITION INTO A NEGATIVE

KEN AVOIDED THE OBAMACARE ISSUE TIL THE FINAL WEEK AND NEVER TIED MCAULIFFE TO THE UNPOPULAR PRESIDENT

KEN BLEW MONEY ON EARLY TV AND LOST HIS LEAD

KEN WENT ON DEFENSE ON PRO-LIFE

KEN IGNORED THE SLEEPER ISSUE OF COMMON CORE

KEN SPENT MORE TIME WORRYING ABOUT BILL BOLLING THAN HIS OWN SUPPORTERS

 

[wylde007]

And Thanks To the Divisiveness of BOTH Campaigns

It has had the added benefit (to the state) of polarizing a once agreeable and solidified front for the 2nd Amendment, highlighting pettiness and discord amongst us and causing the focus to shift from the real issue to bickering and infighting over whose loser lost best and why.

Awesome job.

 

[peter nap]

It has had the added benefit (to the state) of polarizing a once agreeable and solidified front for the 2nd Amendment, highlighting pettiness and discord amongst us and causing the focus to shift from the real issue to bickering and infighting over whose loser lost best and why.

Awesome job.

Amen Wylde!
I got a message from someone who is on a hunting board with me and drifts in here sometimes.

He compared us (The gun lobby) to Kirby Burch's tards at the VaHDA. That is a very long fall.

 

[va_tazdad]

Some of us

Amen Wylde!
I got a message from someone who is on a hunting board with me and drifts in here sometimes.

He compared us (The gun lobby) to Kirby Burch's tards at the VaHDA. That is a very long fall.

Did heed your request. It is over and time to refocus. Virginia lost in this election.

We are screwed for the next 4 years and it will take even more to just hold on to what we have and keep the gun grabbers at bay.

 

[peter nap]

Did heed your request. It is over and time to refocus. Virginia lost in this election.

We are screwed for the next 4 years and it will take even more to just hold on to what we have and keep the gun grabbers at bay.

It wasn't about you or any of the real members Taz. Unfortunately, the quiet ones go unnoticed.

 

[va_tazdad]

Lol

It wasn't about you or any of the real members Taz. Unfortunately, the quiet ones go unnoticed.

Nobody has ever called me quiet. NOBODY. Thanks.

 

[Thundar]

No more gasoline on the fire, just a rational discussion

It has had the added benefit (to the state) of polarizing a once agreeable and solidified front for the 2nd Amendment, highlighting pettiness and discord amongst us and causing the focus to shift from the real issue to bickering and infighting over whose loser lost best and why.

Awesome job.

Wydle,

There has been discord for a long time in Virginia between the Gun Rights Crowd and the P4P crowd. In your statement above, we cannot agree on what "the real issue" is. For me, at the State and local level, the center of gun rights is Constitutional Carry.

Our current problems came to a boil when politics, gun rights, a PAC, an organization president and some over zealous posters on this board all collided. (I am one of those over zealous guilty bastards) It wasn't a pretty sight. Eventually we must confront the issues that are harming us if we are to heal and come back together.

My .02: ACTA non VERBA - Deeds not words - Constitutional Carry is one of my core beliefs and is a basic tenant of gun rights. I cannot and will not support politicians or organizations that do not support Constitutional Carry. There are others on this board that also feel this way.

Here is some perspective: Question: Would VCDL PAC have endorsed the Cooch if the Cooch had wanted to "close the gun show loophole and institute universal background checks in Virginia?" Answer: Depends on whether the issue was a core value for VCDL PAC.

VCDL PAC made a choice and clearly indicated that Constitutional Carry was not a core value and that opposition to Constitutional Carry was OK.

So, I am all for healing and coming together, but not at the cost of compromising core values.

I write here in a very unemotional tone because that is the way to confront the issues that divide us without throwing gasoline on the fire.

Live Free or Die,
Thundar

 

[MamabearCali]

Virginia lost last week. No doubt. I'll not quibble over why. It was a good showing for cooch considering they were calling for a double digit defeat three weeks before. Just not

Now gird up your loins, dig in your feet. The real battle is just over the hill. We have four year(ish) of conflict ahead.

 

[The Wolfhound]

I hate to go to sports analogies, but......

If our rights battles are a football season, Constitutional Carry is our Super Bowl. I agree it is our goal as it is the expression of the right our Constitution guarantees. Is it a failure to not make the big game but make the playoffs? Yes, but I would take that over a losing season. Do not disreguard advancment short of the goal as failures. Just do not stop and enjoy gains without returning to the struggle. I am truely radical, to me, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" really means that. Not infringed by Federal government. Not infringed by State government. Not infringed by local government. Not infringed by "property rights". Not by anybody! I should (and ANYBODY should) be able to go where I wish, when I wish and my status of being armed should be irrelevant. My behavior dictates whether I am welcome. I embrace the ultimate goal of Constitutional Carry, nationwide. Any steps in the right direction are not failures for not getting to the ultimate goal.

 

[peter nap]

If our rights battles are a football season, Constitutional Carry is our Super Bowl. I agree it is our goal as it is the expression of the right our Constitution guarantees. Is it a failure to not make the big game but make the playoffs? Yes, but I would take that over a losing season. Do not disreguard advancment short of the goal as failures. Just do not stop and enjoy gains without returning to the struggle. I am truely radical, to me, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" really means that. Not infringed by Federal government. Not infringed by State government. Not infringed by local government. Not infringed by "property rights". Not by anybody! I should (and ANYBODY should) be able to go where I wish, when I wish and my status of being armed should be irrelevant. My behavior dictates whether I am welcome. I embrace the ultimate goal of Constitutional Carry, nationwide. Any steps in the right direction are not failures for not getting to the ultimate goal.

I'm not sure I'd say any steps Wolfhound, but it's a Moot Point now anyway. The simple reality is that Constitutional carry WILL NOT happen in the next 4 years.

We all need to accept that and get on with the task at hand which is keeping what we have with maybe a little forward progress if the stars line up.

As far as VCDL not showing any interest in Constitutional carry, that simply is untrue. Granted I think they took the wrong road but that doesn't mean they aren't trying.

 

[Thundar]

Stanley Cup

If our rights battles are a football season, Constitutional Carry is our Super Bowl. I agree it is our goal as it is the expression of the right our Constitution guarantees. Is it a failure to not make the big game but make the playoffs? Yes, but I would take that over a losing season. Do not disreguard advancment short of the goal as failures. Just do not stop and enjoy gains without returning to the struggle. I am truely radical, to me, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" really means that. Not infringed by Federal government. Not infringed by State government. Not infringed by local government. Not infringed by "property rights". Not by anybody! I should (and ANYBODY should) be able to go where I wish, when I wish and my status of being armed should be irrelevant. My behavior dictates whether I am welcome. I embrace the ultimate goal of Constitutional Carry, nationwide. Any steps in the right direction are not failures for not getting to the ultimate goal.

If our battles are a football season, then some are trying to win the Stanley Cup! Small "victories" from an incremental approach can often win at the tactical level. Small victories and a vision are not incomparable. We should not however, make the mistake of substituting small victories for the long term vision. What is of great concern to me is the willingness of some to not only abandon the vision, but to condemn those that have not abandoned the vision , those who openly advocate most strenuously for all of our gun rights.
Live Free or Die,
Thundar