How Stupid Does Garren Shipley Think We Are?

The RPV screws up again.

Comments

[steve vaughan]

Okay, that is shockingly lame.
They didn't attend the speech, they don't agree with the speech, both oppose the ban on assualt weapons, and yet the RPV will keep the ad up. Why? Because they think the voters are too freaking stupid to care about the facts.

[Jack]

"Because they think the voters are too freaking stupid to care about the facts."

Well, they ARE trying to get Democrat votes. ;-)

[steve vaughan]

Well, there might be enough Republican votes to win an election if they didn't run such a tone-deaf, incompetent and polarizing operation over there.

[haha]

This is all part of a grand master-plan, I'm sure.

[TomPaine]

Every one knows that Republicans create their own reality!

[Jack]

And that Democrats ignore reality altogether!

[haha]

Well how about this

that crowd looked pretty full.

Knowing that both our reps in VA 5 & 9 are full of shit on just about every subject - I wouldn't put it past them to have their interns lie about their whereabouts

[steve vaughan]

haha: Very weak. But you could have a future as the communications director of the RPV.

[haha]

No I'm serious. So every other effing dem in congress was there except for the Virginia delegation?

That room doesn't look full unless it is

[Dan]

Republicans lying? Isn't this sort of a "dog bites man" story? Nothing new or surprising about this.

[change]

Yes those republican promises like:
Spending trillions will keep unemployment below 8%....
The most “transparent” administration….
We won’t raise any taxes on the middle class….
You can keep your current health plan…
Etc..etc…etc.. ad nausea….

[Gretchen Laskas]

The point of the ad, to me, shows that the RPV plans to say anything in order to win this fall. Democrats should take this ad as a shot across the bow that this fall will be nasty, brutish and all too short. Anyone who thinks Republicans are suddenly going to "play fair" is likely to be disappointed.

[Tobias Jodter]

What is happening??? I keep checking back but nothing about Cuccinelli! I thought this was "Cuccinelli 24 7".

[Jack]

Tobias, I'm sure they will discover that it was Cooch behind the ads.

[TomPaine]

There are three kind of lies:

1. Lies: Jack's comments
2. Damn lies: change's comments
3. Statistics: all other Republican comments

[Spock]

I don't get these Republicans.

They're mad because the public voted for Obama.

So, what do they do?

They continue to display the reason why the public voted for Obama.

Kevorkian politics...

[Jack]

Tom, you're just angry because you didn't think to blame it on Cooch. ;-)

[haha]

Everyone keeps saying cooch is crazy - but he keeps winning.

how do we convince "the people" what the blogosphere seems to accept as fact!?

[Richmond Watcher]

Garren Shipley has been a disaster since day one. RPV was warned that hiring an inexperienced and sloppy ego-maniac was a bad idea.

[Spock]

Maybe we should ask Coooch about what he thinks of the Civil Rights Act?

I am interested in his response....anyone else..?

[truthnjustice]

So where's Change and HisRoc and James Young to defend this behavior? I'm sure they have perfectly sound explanations, right? NOT!!!

[HisRoc]

I really don't understand the Republican position here. I am a life-long (so far) gun owner, a concealed carry permit holder, and a retired military officer. My Second Amendment point of view is that the SCOTUS got it exactly right in DC v. Heller when they ruled that the 2A protects an individual right to bear arms, not just those in an authorized militia force. However, assault rifles are not appropriate weapons for civilians, anymore than hand grenades, crew-served machine guns, or rocket launchers. They serve no legitimate purpose outside of the military. They should never be permitted to be privately owned.

I don't buy that "slippery slope" crap about banning any kind of firearms and I worry about the ulterior motives of civilians who want to possess military weapons. That is probably why I have never belonged to the NRA or the GOA.

Let's get real. If our government became so oppressive that an armed rebellion was necessary, does anyone thing that a bunch of weekenders in surplus camouflage could take on the US military? I watched those silly Hutaree Militia "training exercise" videos on the Internet and laughed my ass off. Two Army Infantry privates could have taken out the whole bunch without changing magazines. Granted, it would have taken three Marines to do the job, but that's because one of them would have been off somewhere scrounging supplies from the Army.

[HisRoc]

t-n-j,

Our comments crossed in the electrons. Read what I was composing while you were writing your stupid post.

Now go screw yourself, you partisan hack.

[Spock]

HisRoc- I get a kick out of the militia types when they mismatch their camo, with those maniacal looking sewn on scout patches...

[Jack]

"However, assault rifles are not appropriate weapons for civilians..."

Go read the MILLER decision of 1939. Miller lost because no evidence was presented that a sawed-off shotgun was MILITARY WEAPON.

"Let's get real. If our government became so oppressive that an armed rebellion was necessary, does anyone thing that a bunch of weekenders in surplus camouflage could take on the US military?"

They're doing pretty well in Afghanistan.

[Spock]

Jack- the rebels in Afghanistan aren't McDonalds scarfing out of shape camo fetishists like these trendy militia clowns.

They have a real cause to fight for over there and nothing to lose.

The militia morons are just pudgy racists who are pissed Obama is president, but they own big pricy SUVs, huge wide screen TVs and all the beer and burgers they want.

Macho posturing alone does not a "revolution" make.

[TomPaine]

Jack:

I'm not one who blames everything on Cooch: In fact I didn't even mention Cooch on the list of Republican liars even though I did mention you and change since both of you are pathological liars.

[Jack]

Really, Tom? Do tell. Please give some examples of my "lies."

[TomPaine]

Whenever you are posting or yopur lips are moving and all the words between "but" "and".

[anon]

Those Afghaners are not weekenders. They are deadly mf'ers who have fought for generations in real wars with real weapons against real armies.

If these guys came over here, they would kick the sh.. out of our home-grown militias in a heartbeat. These dudes are as serious as a heart attack.

[TomPaine]

anon:

Are you implying that a bunch of illiterate hankerchief heads could defeat our illiterate KKK red necks!?

[HisRoc]

Jack wrote:

"However, assault rifles are not appropriate weapons for civilians..."

Go read the MILLER decision of 1939. Miller lost because no evidence was presented that a sawed-off shotgun was MILITARY WEAPON.
___________________________

Gosh, Jack. You are completely mis-citing US v. Miller. I don't know if that is because you have never actually read it or if it is because your are intentionally attempting to be deceptive. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have never read US v. Miller.

Miller was a petty thug who was arrested and prosecuted for having a sawed off shotgun in his possession. The US Congress had passed the National Firearms Act previously to that arrest, tiptoeing carefully around the Second Amendment and citing the Militia Clause, making it illegal for private citizens to possess military weapons. The law, BTW, was principally aimed at the Thompson Automatic Sub-machine Gun, you know, the one of Eliot Ness and Al Capone fame. Miller was tried and convicted under the NFA for possession of a military weapon.

Miller did not lose the Supreme Court decision. (Unfortunately, he didn't win it either since he died before the case came to the Court.) The Court held that since a sawed off shotgun was not a weapon used by the military, Miller could not be convicted under the NFA.

Now then, Jack. Please explain how US v. Miller makes possession of military full-automatic assault rifles, such as the M16 which are only used by the military, constitutional? I cannot follow your convoluted logic here and can't belief that such thinking doesn't hurt your head.

[Spock]

HisRoc-Jack has read "Unintended Consequences" at tad too many times...

Jack- So, do these militias have a DADT policy...?...

[HisRoc]

TP wrote:

Are you implying that a bunch of illiterate hankerchief heads could defeat our illiterate KKK red necks!?
____________________________

TP, the correct nomenclature for the Afghan insurgents is "diaper heads." A handkerchief would never come close to covering the large pointed heads they have which is the source of their allegiance to Allah. And, yes. Having first-hand experience with both True Believers and members of the KKK, I believe that a Girl Scout Troop with a collective case of PMS could wipe out any equivalent force of while supremacists.

[Spock]

Don't underestimate "a Girl Scout Troop with a collective case of PMS "...

[HisRoc]

However, going back to the original thread here, and just to confirm that I'm not a friend of the leftists, I would like to ask why President Calderon was presuming to lecture our Congress on gun control laws, assault rifles notwithstanding. From the joint White House press conference, one can assume that he was urging gun control in the United States to stem the flow of illegal weapons into Mexico from our free republic. And, our good President Obama supported him by citing the debunked canard that most of the illegal weapons in Mexico come from the US, a position that supports his and Eric Holder's objective of furthering gun control of all types in the United States.

In fact, the statistic thrown around by the gun-grabbers that "87% of all illegal weapons seized in Mexico come from the US" is pure bullshit. In reality, 87% of the illegal weapons seized in Mexico that the Mexicans turn over to us for tracing come from the US. From 2007-2009, Mexico turned over less than 9,700 weapons to us that were suspected to be of US origin. However, our own ATF estimates that they seized over 75,000 weapons during that same period. According to ATF Congressional testimony in 2008, the vast majority of illegal weapons seized in Mexico come from China and other international arms trading countries and not the US. How do the Mexicans game the statistics? Easy. Under the Merida Initiative we have given them access to the US ATF system called eTrace and paid them $2M a year to use it.

I would have been much more impressed if President Calderon had urged our Congress not to emulate Mexico's ineffectual gun laws but had urged us to adopt their laws on illegal immigration. In Mexico, you cannot check into a hotel without proof of Mexican legal residency or producing a passport that shows legal entry. Police officers can question and detain those whom they have "reasonable cause" to belief might be in Mexico illegally. (Wow. That sounds racist to me. Any chance that white people who speak little or no Spanish are profiled?) And people who are tried and convicted of entering Mexico illegally are routinely sentenced to prison terms before they are deported.

What do you say, President Calderon? Shall we solve the illegals weapon smuggling from the US by using Mexico's own legal processes on those illegals we identify here in the US?

[Spock]

HisRoc- Wow one speech and Calderon is dictating firearm policy...?...bet Chavez can't do that....heck.. Heller and the Brady campaign can't even do that...

Gun rights are about as safe as keeping abortion legalized.

Neither rights are going anywhere any time soon.

I am 100% for gun rights, but I also recognize its a wedge issue to keep people divided.

[HisRoc]

Spock,

I'm sorry. I didn't make my point clear.

President Calderon is a major hypocrite and an all-around moron for criticizing US gun laws and the Arizona citizenship checks when his own government turns a blind eye to Chinese arms smuggling and enforces illegal immigration laws that are even more severe then the new law in Arizona or those in the rest of the US.

Ya got that now, bunky?

[Spock]

HisRoc- Sorry, it was late and my eyes were a bit bleary.

[Jack]

"do these militias have a DADT policy...?"

Actually, DADT is CONGRESS'S policy, imposed on the military. Blame bad policy on those who make policy, not on those subject to it.

[Jack]

Sorry, HisRoc, but you have it totally wrong. Read the decision yourself: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html

Miller's indictment was thrown out by the District Court as a violation of the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court overturned that because, "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."