Daily Digest: You Can’t Take It With You Edition

1. While those benchrest guns are not my cup of tea, they are kind of neat. Very interesting machine work and I like how they reload right at the range.

2. I lived in Virginia for a while. The thought of McAuliffe as governor makes my stomach turn. Bloomie is dumping his ad money on the NOVA suburbs. It would just motivate Cuccinelli’s supporters most everywhere else.

   • Yeah, it’s about 65-35 GOP once you’re more than about forty miles from DC. In 2012, there were literally three blue counties outside of that radius.

     • Don’t get complacent…

       I give you Exhibit A: New York

       • well, i want to put nova to the torch, but there’s only so much gas one man can buy.

   • And who’s complaining about outside money influencing local elections?

     A rhetorical question, I know, but hypocrisy has always been my biggest source of disgust toward many liberals.

     Spider

     • How many POTG think the issue of gun control is only a state issue? Bloomberg and company think nationally and some of our brothers think locally. That puts the gun owners squarely on the defensive. Not a good way to fight.

       • National restrictions on 2A protections will have the greatest impact on states and jurisdictions that have a pro gun stance. It is MUCH better, and more defeating to the anti’s, that each state have its own control over gun policy rather than having to bow to federal control either by law or through funding incentives (or penalties). That is what is most durable for gun rights.

         Better there are different levels of gun rights protections among the various states than one federal set of rules which you know will look like something that currently exists in states such as CA, NY, CT, or the like.

         Feinkenstein’s and the grabbers’ efforts earlier this year in the Senate were patterned very much like the intrusive CA “gun control” laws. The states with the most restrictive gun laws are Petri dishes for the Democrats to test incursion strategies for suppression of 2A protections and expansion of oppressive national gun laws.

3. Those PPC Benchrest rifles look about as sporting as a Tracking Point rifle. A drooling infant could fire one of those.

   • I find them more interesting if I think of them as examples of precision engineering instead of anything that involves marksmanship.

     • ^^^ this.
       Who can build the best machine.

       • And reload the most consistent ammo.

         There are plenty of competitions out there for people interested in honing their personal shooting skills. This is awesome for completely different reasons.

4. Excuse me for being ignorant, but, what is the point in putting that kind of money into something that will never get used to do anything put but holes in targets? Is it really a riffle inside of a benchrest or is it one whole unit?

   • The ultimate quest for perfection: one hole groups.

5. Those benchrest rifles are pretty cool from an engineering/machining standpoint, it seems that the focus comes down heavily on the side of mechanical error than shooter error. I would enjoy attempting to make the most accurate firearm (rifle doesn’t seem like the best term to use) I possibly could, portability, utility and ergonomics be damned. Unfortunately my budget precludes me from taking part, and I don’t think that will change any time soon.

   • There is some skill involved in reading the environment, wind, etc., and responding accordingly. When winners are determined by .001″, there is absolutely no room for any error at all.

6. Lol gun control side spends double the money, yet gun control folk claim the nra is all about buying politicians. Lol wow

7. They BOTH make me sick to my stomach. LITERALLY. I’m voting for the Libertarian candidate, whatever his name is. I can’t recall it, but he’s on the ballot. This is what it’s reduced to: voting for an unelectable candidate. Nevertheless, I’m voting my large conscience.

   • That is, in practice, a vote for the democrat. “but, but, the two party system, man,..” I don’t give a shit. you have to deal with the world as it is. If you want a libertarian candidate with a snowball’s chance, you need to change the republican party. A whole measure is good when you can get it, but you f**king can’t. You’ve decided to go down with the ship and f**k everyone else over in the process.

     I cannot decide if large L Libertarians, the party and its voters, are short sighted, dumb, or deliberately trying to help the democrat party by splitting the right wing vote. The latter is how it invariably plays out. You can’t be that big on liberty if you constantly pursue a strategy that makes it easier for the totalitarian party to win elections.

     • +1

     • Don’t think of it as who you would like to “win” the election (i.e. Libertarian).

       Think of it as who you would like to “lose” the election (i.e. Democrat) and vote for the most likely candidate to allow that to happen.

       Yes, it’s a crappy choice… I vote on principle in the primaries (for non-incumbents, Libertarians, etc.) to send the message that the two-party candidates suck, but in actual elections swallow your pride and at least get the rabid anti-gun guys outta there.

       It’s a slow process but if the R’s and D’s see the trends in the primaries they might start offering up candidates to get that vote back.

     • If the Republicans run more guys like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, who emphasize defending the Constitution, they’ll find the GOP will be an easier sell to libertarians.A visible commitment to all civil liberties and scaling back the surveillance state would be a big draw.

       • Except Cuccinelli is like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. Please don’t buy off on the false flag Libertarian Social Conservative shiboleth. Everybody’s favorite small government female polictican Sarah Palin is a “Social Conservative.”

       • I will say I like a lot of the tea party candidates specially Rand Paul. He and his staff actually answer questions you send in rather quickly. well before the shut down they did.

     • I can’t in good conscience vote for someone so strongly influenced by Bloomberg. I refuse to vote for someone who supports the government getting involved in doctor-patient decisions in such a way that a medically unnecessary procedure must be performed before you can terminate a pregnancy. I don’t like abortion in general, I don’t want an abortion, I hope I never need an abortion, but I believe there are times they are necessary and the government shouldn’t be involved in that decision. And they’re both sleazy politicians and I’m sick of the mudslinging. If the Republicans had nominated Bill Bolling, he’d have my vote. Since they decided to screw around and go with the echo chamber that is the convention system they’ve got a less viable candidate and no-one to blame but themselves. As such I’m with Burke on the Libertarian vote.

       • News flash: 99% of the time, abortions themselves are not a medically necessary procedure. Regardless, abortion isn’t going away. You’re L vote will essentially support a completely anti-gun Democrat.

       • Except Bill Bolling is a RINO

     • For all practical purposes the Libertarian Party is a Democratic Party False Flag operation. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Clintons start covertly funding the Libertarians in advance of the 2016 elections. A vote for a Libertarian is a vote for a gun grabbing Democrat.

       Republican wymen apparently aren’t any more intelligenct then Democratic wymen. McAuliffe has sold them on the idea that Cuccinelli will ban contraception and abortion. These wymen seem to have never heard of Griswald v Conneticut or Roe v Wade. Cuccinelli can’t ban contraception and abortion. McAullife has been misrepresenting Cuccinelli’s legislative initiatives when he was in the state senate. All Cuccinelli asked for was that abortion clinics meet the same common sense health and safety standards that other healthcare providers have to meet (If it saves one woman’s life.) He also thinks that a parent should not be allowed to use no fault divorce proceedings to walk out on minor children (It’s for the Children) and that if a drunk driver runs into someone and the wanted unborn child dies he believe the drunk driver should be prosecuted for vehicular homicide. That is the law in many other states.

       Now if these Republican wymen only vote against Cuccinelli and the House of Delgates remains majority Republican or at least majority pro-Second Amendment then gun rights will not be in danger. However, McAullife will still loot the Commonwealth just like Rod Blagojevich in Illinois.

       • The Libertarian party has siphoned away a huge amount of votes from the Democratic party as well.

         Don’t fool yourself into thinking that their only effect is to lessen Republicans’ voting base.

       • There is no evidence for that. The idea that people who vote Democratic will switch to Libertarians because of their “Progressive” views on drugs and sex is a fantasy. Libertarians ought to think about why they support the key components of the Progressive core social agenda instead.

       • Thanks for putting my thoughts into words tdiinva, when I was younger I considered myself to be a hardcore libertarian i.e. fiscally conservative and socially liberal (probably from reading too much Ayn Rand). It took a long time (and Obama being twice elected) for me to realize that my vote for (L) candidates was essentially cutting off my nose to spite my face. I didn’t like GW that much, I sure as hell didn’t like John McCain, and Mitt Romney seemed to me to be merely a conservative flavored Obama. Man was I wrong. I just look at cities that have been ruined by years of democrat policies run amok and cannot help but think that all of America will look like Detroit and Chicago if America doesn’t do a political about face soon. Their incessant assault on our values, freedoms and constitutional rights can only be fought off by electing those who can effectively oppose them and win. Last time I checked, Libertarians aren’t winning sh*t.

         While I don’t consider myself a Republican, I have decided that the lesser of two evils, despite being a tad evil IMO, is still better than the dems/libs who are evil incarnate. I can find common ground with most Rs on many issues, not so much with Ds. When people ask me about my political orientations, I always just tell them that I am fundamentally anti-authoritarian and leave it at that.

     • Stop, stop, stop. A vote for the Democrats doesn’t take everyone down, like gays, immigrants, etc etc. They have as much a right to be left alone as I do to a gun and Ken “I want to give you a mandatory transvaginal ultrasound” Cooch doesn’t count. Gun rights are about 1000x less endangered than their plight. So no, as someone who’d like to legally possess unregistered silenced machine guns, McAwful would wreck fewer lives and rights that are worse off. That doesn’t mean I like him. It means Cooch is just that goddamn terrible. Welcome to the libertarian’s plight: no matter who you vote for, you’re a hypocrite.

       • You are just repeating McAuliffe’s agitprop lies, although I haven’t heard the thing about gays and immigrants execpt from you.. Cuccinelli is not threatening gays, legal immigrants or anybody else. I have told you what Cuccinelli’s bills sought ot accomplish and not what McAulife lied told lies about. If you don’t understand what Griswald and Roe mean then you don’t belong in the conversation.

   • Ken supports limited government and gun rights. Disgusting! Why would anyone ever vote for a Republican when Terry is clearly the Obama / Bloomberg / Big Government choice?

     / Massive sarcasm

   • Our political system would be greatly improved by a switch to approval voting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

     In short, approval voting makes the question in an election “do you approve of this candidate” and if you can answer “yes” you give that candidate a vote. The candidate with the most vote wins. So if you approve of the Libertarian candidate the most, but also approve of the Republican candidate’s stance on gun control, then you give each of them a vote. There’s no such thing as “wasting” a vote: you can always vote for the people you feel good about.

     • I really like the idea of either alternative vote (1, 2, 3, 4 in that order) or the single transferable vote (if this guy doesn’t win, give my vote to that guy). I don’t believe we’ll ever see either one in my lifetime, but both of those make more sense to me than the single vote, first-past-the-post system we have now.

       • On that note, I highly recommend this video: The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained

         and its followup: The Alternative Vote Explained.

         CGPGrey makes awesome videos, and if you lost a couple hours watching them, I don’t think you’d consider your time wasted.

   • The Sarvis supporters here are clearly ignorant of his history and fail to understand the math in defeating anti-gun liberals.

   • No one can make you vote for someone you don’t like. Good for you William. Personally I don’t care if my vote for an “L” or an “I” gets a “D” elected. What that really does is forces the “R” group to consider my wishes or they’ll soon be defeated every time.

     I’d rather elect a whole bunch of “D” and watch the world go to hell fast. Then EVERYONE knows who is to blame and we can get this country headed back in the right direction. We’re just slowly walking the road to destruction as it is.

8. it seems democracy is for sale here, no no sensible person could say this is govt of the people by the people when clearly money is so influential. Can you not impose equal spending limits prior to elections, candidate results voided if they spent more than the guy who spent the least?

   • Violates free speech, apparently.

9. I’m a libertarian, but goddamn, do I hate libertarian purists. If the GOP isn’t good enough, CHANGE IT. Join a libertarian caucus. Get involved in primaries. Don’t sit home, pout, and elect Democrats who are far worse. Idiots.

   • +1

     I’d really like to see the Republican party transform itself into a true Libertarian party. Really, any move to recognize our true system of government would be great, with the Democrats seemingly wanting rule by the majority with no respect for minority rights. When Obama and the Democrat machine came out and claimed absolute, resounding victory and a validation of their policy decisions because they received 51% of the vote, I wanted to scream. Likewise, the Republican party is divided and seemingly has no spine or principles. At least the Democrats are committed to their idiocy.

     The Liberty Amendments articulated by Mark Levin would be a step in the right direction, though I’m still on the fence regarding congressional override of the courts with just a 60% majority.

     • Congress can already has the power override the Courts. The Constitution gives the legislative branch the power to set the jurisdiction of the Courts. Instead of complaining about judicial overreach Congress can simply use its power to strip the courts of jurisdcition.

       • The idea proposed is that a vote of Congress can overturn an individual Supreme Court ruling. I don’t agree with this on the basis that I don’t think 60% is a high enough threshhold. Think of the good decisions (Heller anyone?) that could be thrown out, it takes the teeth away from court rulings. If we’re going to give Congress the ability to overturn Judicial rulings, I think it needs to be an overwhelming majority.

         Now, I do not understand if such a vote would overturn or otherwise nullify the precedent set by the court, but then again I don’t really understand the scope and nature of judicial precedent either. Looks like I need to do more reading…

       • I know what the amendment says. The Constitution already gives Congress power over Court jurisdiction. They should use it. I class Levin’s amendment with the “stop me before I vote again” term limits amendments.

10. As a former WFM employee, that was either an inside job or a VERY observant, persistent “customer” who understood the routines of money handling in the store. I don’t buy the idea that nobody knew about the receiving door…it is for receiving. Of course non-employees see it, whenever a delivery is made, or whenever anyone drives/walks behind the store. It isn’t rocket science, every business has a back door.

    We were never terribly secure in transporting our money to the vault in the back of the store, but we handled sums of money a LOT smaller than 60 grand. I’d like to see that store’s accounting and sales, 60 grand in cash on hand is crazy, and this is coming from a guy who worked in the flagship (at the time) Mid Atlantic store in Annapolis, MD. We did huge business there, and we never had that kind of cash on hand.

11. McAuliffe is on record wanting magazine limits, AWB, and restricting your right to purchase a gun to 1 gun per month. I’m sure the AWB would include registration of some kind like in California. I just moved to Virginia and thought it would be gun friendly. After all, they allow open carry for God’s sake. However, if this guy gets in… I’m going to be looking hard at packing up and heading to Texas. Especially if they implement an Assault Weapons Ban. Anyone the Clintons and Bloomy are behind I am against. Stand up VA and get to the polls.

Comments are closed.