Notes From HPS
BY Herschel Smith
10 years, 4 months ago
“I know Gillespie and I will not support him or vote for him,” a frequent correspondent active in Virginia Second Amendment promotion and support told me. Part of that may be due to Gillespie’s refusal to personally commit to the issue, as illustrated by his failure to return a Virginia Citizens Defense League Candidate Survey. Part of it may be due to his consummate insider loyalties to the GOP establishment as a former Bush White House staffer and head of the RNC. Part of it may be that he established a “bipartisan” lobbying firm with a Democrat partner, and a former White House Counsel to Bill Clinton at that. And the big part is that there was a better candidate that the establishment did not want..
Another survey Gillespie failed to answer is the one on immigration put out by Numbers USA, where he rates “indecisive” on the question of amnesty for illegal aliens …
Read the rest of David’s analysis. When I see that there was a so-called “tea party” candidate running against an establishment candidate, and the establishment brought in the power brokers and dollars to run the tea party candidate out of the race, I won’t go to the polls on election day to vote for the establishment candidate. Thus, I will not be voting for Thom Tillis in my own state.
This is entirely a personal choice, and I am not advocating that you make it too. I’m saying that I’m not a prostitute and won’t whore my vote out to the highest bidder (or in this case, the least progressive candidate).
Contrary to what the gun prohibition lobby would have the public believe, the firearms community is hardly a monolithic voting bloc that thinks and talks alike on every issue. Gun owners argue amongst themselves about all manner of subjects, and the disagreements can get downright brutal. Such can certainly be said about the past 72 hours with the discussion and debate over the JPFO/SAF controversy.
And I’m sure there will be more to come. My expectation is that good folk who work for JPFO will keep us informed of the vicissitudes of their labors there.
Both Reid and Horsford appear to be arguing that the fact that sometimes law enforcement agencies do indeed abuse the power of certain firearms should not mean that agencies that do not engage in such abuses be forced to get by with lesser guns. Does the same logic somehow not apply to the rest of us?
Of course not. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, and Reid certainly has a small mind. I suspect he is thinking about how his jack booted thugs at the BLM were stood down by boys toting rifles that looked the same as his thugs. Awe … did your son not get rich selling out America to Chinese business partners because of AR-15s, Harry?
|
|
On August 26, 2014 at 10:45 pm, Blake said:
A vote for someone like Gillespie, in Rand’s immortal words, is “the sanction of the victim.”
On August 27, 2014 at 11:03 am, I_R_A_Darth_Aggie said:
“won’t whore my vote out to the highest bidder (or in this case, the least progressive candidate)”
The only problem with that is you may end up with the more progressive candidate getting elected. That helps…how, exactly?
On August 27, 2014 at 8:18 pm, Ned Weatherby said:
Because voting in the “least progressive candidate(s)” has worked really well so far.
I will take the same position as Herschel on this matter. How is is “better” to vote in a candidate who will take a moderately slower path to the same end? Screw that. If it gets bad quickly, instead of boiling the frog bad, maybe – just maybe – more people will wake the eff up. As some Soviets used to say – understanding that the process couldn’t continue forever: “Worse is better, Comrade, worse is better.”
I won’t vote for a Republican merely because he or she is a Republican. The entrenched RINO cronies seem to take the position that, if Democrats decided to destroy every library in the U.S. because certain book learnin’ could be used for nefarious purposes, the Republican can merely implement the solution of destroying HALF the libraries, then slowly destroying the others over a 3 year period. The results are the same – the path is moderately different.
If a liberty-minded candidate is worth voting for, fine. If it’s only a slow frog-boil to tyranny, to heck with them. Bring on the hot water. And, no – I don’t want to see the fit hit the shan. But it appears that it’s gonna. Voting for the three year plan, in my mind, won’t help in the long run.
On August 27, 2014 at 9:44 pm, Josh said:
You assume the outcome of voting is binary: winning or losing. That is a reductive fallacy, especially because both voting scenarios, as argued, are “losing.”
EDIT: replied to wrong person
On August 28, 2014 at 11:02 am, I_R_A_Darth_Aggie said:
“Bring on the hot water. ”
You have family? friends you care about? You don’t want that for them.
I mean, I get your frustration. But you want *instant* gratification. The proggies have been at this since Wilson was president.
You’re simply delusional if you think you’ll be able to turn back 100 years of progressive policies on a dime.
What you need is a revolution. Be careful of what you want: you might get it. And you may not win. Then what?
On August 29, 2014 at 1:16 am, Ned Weatherby said:
Actually, it’s been going on since Lincoln. Thanks for telling me what I want – “*instant* gratification” and explaining: “What you need is a revolution. Be careful of what you want: you might get it. And you may not win. Then what?”
Guess you missed this part above: “And, no – I don’t want to see the fit hit the shan.”
Other than this, I won’t engage further with one who believes he or she has the capacity to explain what I want and what I need. Especially when you’re not even close to correct.
On August 27, 2014 at 6:24 pm, Rob Crawford said:
The entire Reid family is insane. Harry’s son was quoted recently saying the family didn’t want any businesses like ranching or mining in Nevada — as if it were their private property, and the people their slaves.