OUR Government?

Is it really “our” government?  If so, why is it “closed”?

We’ve paid them.  We’ve dutifully paid taxes we allowed them to impose.  A LOT of taxes.  Yet we’re letting them take the money, not appropriate it, and then close OUR facilities.  OUR monuments.  OUR courts.  OUR national parks.  Including those that get NOT A DIME of federal funding.  Including monuments with NO doors to lock, no restrooms to clean, and no trash cans to empty; outdoor monuments on OUR National Mall, in OUR national capitol.   Federal Park Police are “essential” to impose the restrictions, in the name of “protecting federal lands, buildings, waterways, equipment and other property owned by the United States.”   Um, that’s by US.

The Washington Post lists “public schools” under the heading of “Federal services” that are open.  Where are the federal public schools?  Yes, I understand that public schools receive some federal funding (without going in to the why of that).

Federal web sites?  Closed.  Because, you know, it takes SO MUCH human intervention to maintain them operable.  Okay, I get that those with changing content may not be updated.  But closed???  Inoperable???  

And, of course, the first lady can’t pour forth her supportive messages without federal funding.

So, this is information you can get anywhere.

What are you doing about it?   Yesterday, I got a lot of busy signal at the Capitol Switchboard (202) 224-3121.  Today’s Washington Post indicates the monuments and memorials are only half-heartedly closed.  It may be necessary to gather some volunteers to empty trash by the weekend, and that seems like a worthwhile cause.  (No matter how much I expect better of my fellow Americans, I know they do not clean up after themselves.)

Published in: on October 3, 2013 at 9:22 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags:

Double standard?

So, here I am reading the local paper this morning (Mt. Vernon Patch, to be precise), and I see yet another article on one of our gubernatorial candidates attacking another.  This time, I see McAuliffe’s statement that “he did nothing wrong and has never received any special treatment because of who he’s friends with or happens to know.”

Yet his champions, here and here, are insisting McDonnell got something because of who he’s friend with or happens to know — that it’s impossible not to.   

 

And they expect us, the voters, to think there’s a difference between the parties?

 

Now, the gifts McDonnell got were tangible, rather than skid-greasers

Published in: on August 13, 2013 at 8:43 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

Fairfax County Police department confused me

I made an on-line report recently of suspicious activity in my neighborhood.  Actually, I’m not even certain it was suspicious, but it was people at my door who were not looking for a specific person, but rather for “Korean families”.  (I didn’t bother to tell them I have a Korean family next door; I had no reason to.)

A few days later, I got an e-mail from “Laura Evans” which said 

Further information is required to complete the processing of your Internet police report (Control Number) xxxxxx.

Please call 703-246-2581

No signature block.  No title, or reference.

A reverse look-up showed the phone number to be from a Department of Public Works.  I decided the e-mail was spam and set it aside.

Later that day, I got a voicemail from “Officer Evans” stating this was my second call (no, it was my first) and to call her.  When I did, I got a recording and chose not to leave a voicemail.

Today I receive a second voicemail from Officer Evans that my report was about to be cancelled.  I called and managed to speak with her.  

 

It was like pulling teeth to get Officer Laura Evans to accept a report that didn’t include my date of birth or DMV customer number. The rationale she gave is that it “makes the report complete.”   I didn’t provide it, as I consider it personally identifiable information which is irrelevant to the report. It’s, frankly, not my problem whether the police department considers the report complete or not.  They do have my name, address, and phone number; isn’t that enough identification?

When she said “you are refusing to provide …” I asked her to change her wording to “I choose not to provide …” She *did* state she would complete the report and note that I chose not to provide.

I may have to FOIA this thing in 6-8 months just to see.

Published in: on March 14, 2013 at 10:04 am  Comments (1)  
Tags: , ,

Oh, why not …

I formally rejected the Catholic church many years ago, after I realized I had been going through motions for a long time, and hadn’t really believed many of its tenets.  Still, I have found myself fascinated by papal conclaves and the selection of a new Bishop of Rome.

I literally had tears in my eyes yesterday as I watched the live stream from Vatican Square, and heard the Cardinal Protodeacon announce “Habemus papam!”  I couldn’t tell what he said immediately afterward; was it “Francesco” or “Francisco”?  

Almost immediately, Twitter came alive with “Pope Francis I”.   

Maybe it’s my love of a multi-cultural world, maybe it’s my respect for others’ languages, maybe it’s my despair of Americans wanting to Anglicize everything, but I was terribly disappointed that “Francesco” became “Francis”.  Is it so terrible to refer to Pope Francesco?

I’ll also admit that I didn’t feel the same disappointment that John Paul i (or II) was not Giovanni Paolo, or that Benedict was not Benedicto.  Perhaps it’s because those names are not common in American life, but Francesco certainly is.

Though I don’t believe in the primacy of the Pope, or his church, I was taken by his apparent humility in his initial remarks, and wish most heartily his god will guide him. I wish as well the best for those who choose to follow him.

But I’ll probably still refer to him as Francesco (Primo).

Published in: on March 14, 2013 at 8:10 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

“They Deserve A Vote”

Emily Miller, senior opinion editor of the Washington Times, writes:

The top legislative priority for gun owners in the previous Congress was passage of a national concealed carry reciprocity bill. The measure sailed through the House on a bipartisan 272 to 154 vote only to die at the hands of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who refused to bring it to the floor. Since President Obama won’t waste an opportunity to exploit the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the measure is being brought back to life. 

How can Reid justify thumbing his nose at the President — the leader of Reid’s party?  Did not the President exhort in his State of the Union address, that the victims “deserve a vote”?  Why is Reid afraid of that vote?

I am not a fan of a national concealed-carry reciprocity bill, at least not without some sense that Congress won’t set the bar so high that it would be akin to qualifying for the Olympics in shooting, or scoring a perfect score on the Camp Peary tactical course, to “earn” a permit.  I DO NOT TRUST the federal government with this process.  Frankly, I’d rather some states (or DC) disarm its citizens than allow Congress to determine standards.  At least states/localities can be replaced by their own citizens.  But not to permit the vote is directly contradictory to the President’s wishes.


Published in: on March 9, 2013 at 4:10 pm  Leave a Comment  

We ELECT these people

The Virginia legislative season is back.

Time for amusement.  The do-nothing, feel-good legislation rolls on.

I’ll be adding more of these as I happen across them.  I have only just so much duct tape I can wrap around my head at one time to keep my brain from exploding.

 

HB1366 “makes it unlawful for a person to smoke in a motor vehicle in the presence of a child younger than 13 years of age; punishable by a civil penalty of $100.”   (Delegate J. Morrisey, D-74)

Okay, who thinks it’s a smart idea to light up in an enclosed space around a child?  Anyone?  Anyone?

Better yet, who thinks a police officer will take the time to cite someone for such a feel-good law?  Oh, by the way, it’s a secondary offense, so you have to do something else wrong, for which the officer will cite you, and then s/he can pile on, if s/he’s in a bad mood.   (Of course, by now the cigarette would be gone, wouldn’t it?  More on that later …)  Since it’s been my experience officers in Fairfax County  run red lights, change lanes in an intersection, cut off other drivers, don’t bother with directional signals, and read their computer screens while driving, I’m not sure they’d recognize a traffic offense.

And … the fine doesn’t go to some health fund, as one would expect since smoking is a health danger, but to a literary fund.  Maybe so offenders could read the new law.  And that literary fund sure could use an extra $200/year.

 

HB 1367  ” includes cigarettes specifically in the category of things deemed litter for purposes of criminal punishment for improper disposal of trash. The bill also provides that in lieu of the imposition of the Class 1 misdemeanor criminal penalty, the court may order the defendant to perform community service in litter abatement activities. If the offense involves a cigarette or cigarettes, the court shall order the payment of a $100 civil penalty payable to the Litter Control and Recycling Fund established in § 10.1-1422.01 in addition to the imposition of such community service.”  (Delegate J. Morrisey, D-74)

At least this one goes to the the Litter Control and Recycling Fund.

 

HB1375 “requires a retail establishment that has a toilet facility for its employees to allow a customer who suffers from Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, or other medical condition that requires immediate access to a toilet facility, to use that facility during normal business hours if certain conditions are met. The measure does not apply to certain filling stations or service stations or to banks or savings institutions. The operator of a retail establishment that violates this requirement is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $100. A violation does not subject the retail establishment to further liability to the customer.” (K. Rob Krupika, D-45)

Full disclosure – I suffer from Crohn’s disease.

This bill says a business owner must allow me to use a restroom.  Unless he runs a gas station or bank, though why those are excluded escapes me.

If he doesn’t, there’s no penalty.

But we’d have a law ……..

SB 736 “requires drivers and passengers to wait for a reasonable opportunity to open vehicle doors on the side adjacent to moving traffic. The bill also requires that in this case vehicle doors only be left open as long as necessary. A violation constitutes a traffic infraction punishable by a fine of not more than $100.”  (J. Chapman Peterson, D-34)

Because I always leave my car doors open much longer than necessary, and I’m sure hundreds (or even thousands) of others do as well.

And wasn’t it sweet of him not to include “any law-enforcement officer, school guard, firefighter, or member of a rescue squad engaged in the performance of his duties.”

Re-election

Imagine this.

You’re the boss; you own a small company with about 200 employees who are the face of your  business to the public; what they say binds you.

You hire Bob Brightguy, and tell him go forth and do.

Then you go do something else for a while.  Services are rendered and billing works in your name.

When it’s time for contract renewal, you look over the list of employees up for renewal, you say “Oh, I know that name.  Yeah, keep him.” and you go play more golf.

That’s what WE THE PEOPLE seem to be doing with our elected officials.  They’re our employees!

We’re not paying attention to how Bob Brightguy votes on routine issues. Does he go along to get along, doing as the party says?   Does he introduce legislation that’s good for the entire county/state/country?  Does he automatically say “no” to ideas that aren’t part of his list of interests?  Is he swayed by unions, associations, lobbying groups, or individuals with deep pockets?  What other sources of income does he have besides what WE THE PEOPLE pay?

When it’s re-election time, we get bombarded with “look what I did for you” mail, e-mail, and phone calls.  Well, to be even more frank, often we get “look what a scumbag the other guy is” instead, or “Fred Flamelight hates redheads, so vote for me.” communications instead.

Can you name one piece of legislation your State Delegate or Senator introduced?  Do you know how s/he voted on legislation that’s important to you?  Do you look to see whether the legislation s/he votes for is giving power to the government or taking it away, and cast your votes accordingly?

What is your federal representative an expert on?  What Committees does s/he sit on?  How does s/he vote on routine issues?  Is s/he party-line, and does that meet your approval?

I ask all this because I was part of a discussion recently where someone was complaining about a ballot issue on our November ballot, and whining that s/he didn’t know anything about it until s/he got to the polls.  ( I’m leaving alone for now the whole issue of a responsible voter learning BEFORE election day what will be on the ballot.)  The issue was a Constitutional Amendment, which by law our legislature must pass it in identical form two years in a row; then they must pass a bill dictating exactly the wording to appear on a ballot.  So by the time the voters see it in November, it has been through the General Assembly twice.

Confidence in our politicians has dropped to atrocious levels over the past few decades, yet WE THE PEOPLE don’t know what our legislators stand for.  Often we don’t know their real stance on issues of importance to us, we don’t know whether their voting record matches their campaign promises, and sometimes we just vote because s/he has a D, R, L, IG, S, or I after his name.

Wake up, voters.  Pay attention – or you get the government you have now, with an approval rating in the cellar and the power to do just about anything they want because they know you won’t listen to anything but Fox or MSNBC, if that.

With any luck at all

With any luck at all, the Republican Party will be seriously transformed over the next four years.

The party needs to realize that America is rejecting social conservatism in a big way. While most Americans will respect your rights to your religious beliefs, we do not want them forced upon us, or legislated into our federal code. The most egregious of those were not even successful in the primary fight, and the more moderate got beat by the actions of others in the party (among other things).

I hope the party splits. The evangelical wing is killing the libertarian wing, and the libertarian wing can’t seem to focus on the issues of importance to most Americans (really. legalizing pot is the #1 issue?). It will be important to separate the viewpoints and see what America really wants. I’m pretty sure it isn’t socialism, but when the choices look worse, it doesn’t say much.

Published in: on November 7, 2012 at 9:22 am  Leave a Comment  

A perfect record???

Once again this election season, not a single Democrat has asked for my vote. Including those whose mailing lists I’m on. Some have asked for money, but not one for my vote.

Actually, it might not be a *perfect* record … I was in the hospital when Scott Surovell came by door-knocking, and I suspect he would have.

Published in: on November 5, 2012 at 9:34 am  Leave a Comment  

There are Other Candidates

Up front — I think the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) is the most awesome grassroots organization imaginable, and I’m proud to be a member.   The work the organization does for the rights of gun owners in Virginia is immeasurable, and the Board of Directors is incredible, doing ever so much more than just guiding.  In fact, I have no problem saying if you aren’t a member, go join before reading further.  If you really, truly cannot prioritize $25/year, at least sign up for the VA-ALERT.

So it is difficult for me to criticize, and this is meant only constructively, with no bitterness and only disappointment.  Recently, the organization released a VA-ALERT (if you aren’t a subscriber, shame on you) quoted below in its entirety.  I’d link you to the VA-ALERT, but I can’t find it, so I can’t expect readers to.

The disappointment I felt was that the VA-ALERT covered only two candidates for President.  Many of us know that in Virginia, there will be five candidates on the ballot.  Incumbent Barack Obama represents the Democrats; former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney the Republicans; former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson the Libertarians, Dr. Jill Stein the Green Party, and former Congressman Virgil Goode represents the Constitution Party this year.  The Constitution Party is not on enough state ballots to have a mathematical chance of obtaining enough electoral votes to win the election.  The other four parties have a mathematical, if long-shot, possibility.

As noted in the VA-ALERT, surveys were mailed to all five candidates (in fairness, only recently – within the past couple of weeks).  Only Virgil Goode amongst the presidential candidates has returned his.

Two of the four candidates are profiled in the piece below.  The two with the lowest probability of winning were not profiled.  In the interest of NON-partisanship, I provide additional information.

Please vote your conscience — but VOTE.

================================

Candidate Jill Stein, Green Party

PRO:   (I didn’t find any; perhaps there are some.)

CON: (Summary: Favors strong regulation of gun ownership; http://www.jillstein.org does not mention guns at all)

QUESTION: “Should most adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?”

ANSWER: “It is more dangerous to the occupants of a home to have a gun than not. It’s more likely that you’ll be injured by your own gun than that you’ll be defended against some intruder with that gun. It’s an enormous public health problem in our cities– there are tragedies every day where young people are being shot, as victims of gun crimes. It’s tragic. We’re not arguing that nobody should have a gun–but public safety should factor into constraints.” “OnTheIssues Interview with Jill Stein,” www.ontheissues.org, Dec. 21, 2011

QUESTION: “Are more federal regulations on guns and ammunition needed?”

ANSWER:  “For public safety, gun ownership should be appropriately regulated.” Project Vote Smart “Political Courage Test,” www.votesmart.org (accessed July 13, 2012)

QUESTION: President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or plan to do to limit the availability of assault weapons? (Jill Stein was asked the same questions the major-party candidates were asked in debate.)

ANSWER: “We certainly need an assault weapons ban, but we need more than that. There are some 260 people every day who are injured or killed by gun violence, so it’s very important that we ban assault weapons, for starters, but there are other steps that need to be taken quickly. Local communities need to be able to regulate guns, as needed, to deal with their violence. So, we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. We need background checks, so that the mentally ill are not possessing and using guns. And we need to end the gun show loopholes, as well, because there’s far too much violence from guns, which is not needed.”

=============================================

Candidate Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party

PRO:

QUESTION: “Should most adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?” ANSWER: “I’m an ardent supporter of the 2nd amendment and openly advocated conceal carry as Governor. It was a new concept at the time, but I believed it would result in less crime – a fact borne out by the statistics.” “Guns Must Never Be Up for Grabs,” www.garyjohnson2012.com (accessed Oct. 13, 2011)

QUESTION: Are more federal regulations on guns and ammunition needed?” ANSWER: “Now, the DOJ’s [Department of Justice’s] plan to address gun trafficking is to require law-abiding citizens in border states to be reported and entered into a federal database for buying perfectly legal rifles from licensed dealers. Not only will this requirement do absolutely nothing to curb violence on either side of the border, it is yet another unacceptable infringement on fundamental 2nd Amendment rights. It is an outrage that this Administration is using border violence as an excuse to add the names of more law-abiding gun owners to their database. The President and his Attorney General need to get off the backs of American gun owners, and focus on policies that will actually work to stop border violence – without eroding basic constitutional rights.” “Governor Johnson Calls Department of Justice Reporting Requirement an Outrage,” www.garyjohnson2012.com, July 13, 2011

QUESTION: President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?

ANSWER: Banning certain categories of firearms or otherwise restricting our constitutional right to own them will not make us safer. Giving up our hard-won freedoms in the guise of safety will hardly make us safer or more free. Instead, we must affirm that the Second Amendment is an individual right and that gun rights are just as important to liberty as are freedom of speech and religion.  (http://www.policymic.com/articles/16793/gary-johnson-presidential-debate-what-the-libertarian-nominee-would-have-said-at-the-debate-last-night/250781)

QUOTE: The Second Amendment: Individual or Collective Right? “I don’t believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None.” April 20, 2011, Slate Magazine QUOTE: “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. The first people who are going to be in line to turn in their guns are law-abiding citizens. Criminals are going to be left with guns. I believe that concealed carry is a way of reducing gun violence.” 12 Nov, 2000, An Interview with Playboy magazine.

CON: ( I didn’t find any; perhaps there are some.)

===========================================

VCDL’S VA-ALERT of November second:

VCDL cannot endorse candidates, but we can look at their records, their 
statements, and their VCDL surveys (or lack thereof).  It is NOT our job to be a 
cheerleader for any candidate or any Party.  We give you the scoop and you 
decide on where your vote will go. 

Keep in mind that the U.S. Senate is critical to protecting gun owners from any 
hare-brained gun-control schemes that might come from the U.N.  The Senate is 
also critical in vetting Presidential appointments to the Supreme Court, of 
which there is probably going to be at least one during the next four years.  
Currently we have only a single vote between us and some real problems for our 
gun rights. 

Here is some information about the candidates for President and for U.S. Senator 
from Virginia. 

PRESIDENTIAL RACE 

President Obama 

Positive: 

* As President, Obama signed a bill with an amendment to allow gun owners to 
carry in National Parks.  This vote is strongly moderated by the fact that the 
main bill had nothing to do with guns and was a bill that Obama wanted to see 
passed.  Without a line-item veto capability, he had to either kill the entire 
bill or sign it with the pro-gun amendment attached.  He chose to sign it.  

* It was a similar situation with another bill and an amendment to allow guns to 
be transported on AMTRAK.  Gun owners seemed to be simply along for the ride on 
that bill, too. 

Negative: 

* President Obama did not return the VCDL Federal Candidate Survey 

* In the debates with Romney, Obama confirmed that he wanted the ban on "assault 
weapons" in his next term and hinted that he wanted a ban on inexpensive 
handguns, too.  Not good news for poor people. 

* President Obama reversed the U.S.'s long standing position of opposing any 
U.N. gun bans. 

* A reporter documented the Brady Campaign bragging about President Obama 
telling them that he was working on gun control "under the radar."  

*  The news was filled with how Mexican Drug Cartels were getting 90% of their 
firearms from the U.S.  Using the excuse of the drug cartels getting those guns, 
the Obama Administration ordered the BATFE and gun dealers to report all sales 
of two or more semi-automatic rifles sold to the same person in a five-day 
period in states bordering Mexico.  Upon inspection, the 90% number turned out 
to be massively inflated and was clearly presented so as to deceive Americans on 
the true number of guns going to Mexico from the U.S. 

* A secret project called Fast & Furious under the Obama Administration was 
uncovered after a U.S. Border Patrol officer was murdered by someone using a gun 
that was one of thousands of "assault weapons" and other guns smuggled to the 
Mexican drug cartels with the blessings of the Obama Administration.  The clear 
intent of Fast & Furious was to falsely accuse U.S. gun dealers of smuggling and 
to drum up support from the U.S. public for a ban on "assault weapons" and to 
expand the required reporting on multiple semi-automatic rifle sales. 

* President Obama selected two very anti-liberty Supreme Court candidates that 
were later confirmed. 

* President Obama's Attorney General Holder said early on that the 
Administration wanted a ban on "assault weapons," but quickly withdrew that 
comment after the trial balloon was not received well.  

* Before he was President, Obama sat on the Joyce Foundation Board of Directors 
- an organization that funds anti-gun efforts around the U.S. 

* As an Illinois state Senator, Obama's voting record and positions were 
absolutely dismal on guns.  There didn't seem to be any gun control that Obama 
didn't support.  

- 

Mitt Romney 

Positive: 

* In the debates with Obama, Romney said that he did not believe that any kind 
of firearm should be banned and that he supported enforcing current laws.  

* During his Presidential campaign, Romney has not called for any kind of gun 
control. 

* Presidential candidate Romney addressed the annual NRA convention (a positive, 
but not a strong one). 

* Presidential candidate Romney has publicly said he does NOT support a U.N. 
treaty that would ban guns. 

Negative: 

* Did not return the VCDL Federal Candidate Survey. 

* (Closer to neutral) As Governor of Massachusetts, Romney signed an extension 
of the "assault weapon ban," but the bill contained improvements and protections 
wanted by gun-rights groups, no new guns were banned, and the bill passed with 
the blessing of gun-rights groups. 

SENATORIAL RACE 

Tim Kaine 

Positive: 

* As Governor, Kaine signed a few minor gun-rights bills to either clarify 
existing law or to improve the CHP application process.  

* Governor Kaine signed one strong bill (allowing CHP holders to have a 
concealed handgun on K-12 school property as long as they stay in their vehicle) 
that had passed BOTH houses by a VETO-PROOF majority. 

Negative: 

* Kaine has refused to return the VCDL Federal Candidate Survey. 

* As Governor, Kaine vetoed the restaurant-ban repeal TWICE.  I cannot think of 
a single pro-gun bill being vetoed by any other Governor since VCDL has existed. 

* As Governor, Kaine vetoed a bill to allow a non-CHP holder to have a loaded 
gun in a locked container or compartment in a vehicle. 

* As Governor, Kaine vetoed a bill to clarify that a person who is not hunting 
can have a loaded gun on public highways. 

* As Governor, Kaine vetoed a bill to allow a person without a CHP to carry on 
their own property outside of their curtilage areas. 

* As Governor, Kaine pushed hard, using a lot of political capital, to get a 
"gun show loophole" bill passed into law.  He even ordered the Superintendent of 
the State Police to testify at the General Assembly in favor of the bill. 

* The Attorney General ruled that State Parks had no authority to ban open 
carry.  Governor Kaine ordered State Parks to ignore that ruling and to keep the 
open carry ban in place. 

* As Mayor of the city of Richmond, Kaine actually used tax-payer money to fund 
buses to take gun-haters to the Million Mom March in D.C. in 2000.  When he was 
called on that illegal move, he paid for the buses out of his own pocket. 

- 

George Allen 

Positive: 

*  Allen HAS returned the VCDL Federal Candidate Survey pro-gun. 

*  As Governor, Allen signed Virginia's first "Shall Issue" CHP law into effect. 

*  As Governor, Allen successfully modified the new Shall Issue law to allow for 
concealed carry at special events 

Negative: 

*  No bad votes.  A mostly neutral item: as a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 
2000 Allen said he would vote to extend the "assault weapon" ban, but later 
changed his mind and supported letting the ban sunset. 

THE 7TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 

Just when I thought we were through with the 7th Congressional District, I've 
been forwarded an email from Marty Ryall, with Eric Cantor's' campaign, which is 
a total mischaracterization that needs a response.  The issue is that 
Congressman Cantor has refused to return his VCDL Federal Candidate Survey.  
(His opponent, Wayne Powell, returned his survey very pro-gun at the end of 
August.)  Cantor has been given the survey to answer at least three times, one 
of which has placed directly in his hands at his gun-free fund raiser in 
Richmond last month. 

Here is the email being sent by the Cantor campaign with my rebuttal: 

In regard to the VCDL, you should know the facts.  That organization continues 
to attack Congressman Cantor through phone calls, mail and e-mails, even 
distributing his home phone number in unfair attacks.  They cannot point to a 
single vote he has made in Congress that they take issue with.  [PVC:  VCDL has 
NEVER said Cantor had any bad gun voters WHILE IN CONGRESS, but that cannot be 
said while he was in the Virginia General Assembly.]  They are upset that he 
occasionally participates in events at venues where guns are not allowed.  
Congressman Cantor’s duties and obligations often take him to schools, 
government buildings and other venues where guns are not allowed.  [PVC:  VCDL 
has NEVER protested Cantor for doing his duties and obligations as a Congressman 
at places where guns are banned.  We have protested when he is campaigning and 
has control of the venue, yet chooses gun-free-killing-zones.]  That has 
absolutely no bearing on his strong pro-gun positions and record.  Until the 
VCDL demonstrates that they will treat Congressman Cantor fairly, he will not 
participate in their activities.  [PVC:  Not telling his constituents exactly 
where he stands on key gun-issues, especially those which he voted wrong on in 
the past, is VCDL's fault?  Sounds to me like the real issue is that he doesn't 
want uppity constituents asking him any serious questions.]  But rest assured, 
he will continue to defend theirs, and your rights of gun ownership.  [PVC:  
Except, perhaps, for some of the items on our survey that he doesn't want to 
talk about. Sadly, Cantor just doesn't get it - his problems with VCDL are all 
self-inflicted.] 

--- 

Congressman Cantor, treat your constituents fairly by just answering the VCDL 
survey.  It's not like we're asking for your first-born child. :-)  
Johnson's Responses: 

QUESTION:  "Should most adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?" 	 

    "I'm an ardent supporter of the 2nd amendment and openly advocated conceal 
carry as Governor. It was a new concept at the time, but I believed it would 
result in less crime - a fact borne out by the statistics." 
    "Guns Must Never Be Up for Grabs," www.garyjohnson2012.com (accessed Oct. 
13, 2011) 

QUESTION: Are more federal regulations on guns and ammunition needed?" 	 

    "Now, the DOJ's [Department of Justice's] plan to address gun trafficking is 
to require law-abiding citizens in border states to be reported and entered into 
a federal database for buying perfectly legal rifles from licensed dealers. 
    Not only will this requirement do absolutely nothing to curb violence on 
either side of the border, it is yet another unacceptable infringement on 
fundamental 2nd Amendment rights. It is an outrage that this Administration is 
using border violence as an excuse to add the names of more law-abiding gun 
owners to their database. The President and his Attorney General need to get off 
the backs of American gun owners, and focus on policies that will actually work 
to stop border violence – without eroding basic constitutional rights." 
    "Governor Johnson Calls Department of Justice Reporting Requirement an 
Outrage," www.garyjohnson2012.com, July 13, 2011 

The Second Amendment: Individual or Collective Right?  "I don't believe there 
should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None." 
April 20, 2011, Slate Magazine 

"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. The first people who are going 
to be in line to turn in their guns are law-abiding citizens. Criminals are 
going to be left with guns. I believe that concealed carry is a way of reducing 
gun violence."   12 Nov, 2000, An Interview with Playboy magazine.
Published in: on November 3, 2012 at 7:20 pm  Leave a Comment