Thanks bunches, vagina voters!

Those of you alleged libertarians who went out and actively spread filth about Ken Cuccinelli during the last Virginia gubernatorial election because of the hysterical “OMG Cuccinelli wants to control my vagina!” meme gave us the corrupt scumbag Terry McAuliffe – I hope you’re happy. I know libertarians are supposed to give a shit about gun rights, so I hope they’re thrilled with McAuliffe’s efforts to destroy the Second Amendment in Virginia.

McAuliffe’s gun initiatives include proposals to:

  • Prohibit the possession of firearms by people subject to protective orders

  • Prohibit the possession of firearms by misdemeanor domestic violence offenders

  • Reinstate the one-handgun-a-month law

  • Revoke concealed-handgun permits for parents delinquent on child support payments

  • Close the “gun show loophole”

The Lautenberg Amendment already prohibits possession, transport, ownership, etc. of firearms by domestic abusers and those subject to a restraining order. And guess what! Any dillhole willing to beat up another person just because his nuts may itch that day will not be stopped by a piece of paper when it comes to purchasing a gun.

The unconstitutional, morally repugnant, and unnecessary one-handgun-a-month law was repealed in Virginia in 2012. Not only did Virginia not see an increase in gun-related crime after the repeal of this monstrosity, but these crimes actually had been on the decrease for a few years before the law was repealed, and continues to drop today.

Then McAuliffe wants to just cancel the Second Amendment rights of parents who are delinquent on child support payments. Now, having dealt with that situation, it’s revolting when a parent won’t support their children. But does that make said parent violent or dangerous? Will depriving them of their natural rights somehow reduce violence? The parent is broke, not violent, ferpetessake! So this is just another little chip off your gun rights.

And then there’s that nonexistent “gun show loophole.” It always boggles my mind when I see progtards drool that old meme. If there was indeed a gun show loophole through which criminals can easily purchase guns, wouldn’t they be purchasing said guns there in droves? Instead less than 1 percent of guns used in crimes were purchased at gun shows. Yeah, there’s a loophole. It’s called the black market, and it’s basic economics, which McAuliffe doesn’t seem to understand. The more you limit legal purchases of firearms and make the exercise of natural rights more onerous, the more people will simply purchase guns off the books. There’s a demand. There will always be a supply. I guess the War on Drugs taught him nothing.

But yes. The vagina voters from all over Virginia gave us McAuliffe. Corrupt, statist, arrogant, hypocritical McAuliffe, and now he’s going after the natural rights of Virginians.

Thanks, vagina voters. Thanks a pantsload. Enjoy your unregulated vaginas, because pretty soon, if T-Mac and crew have their way, you won’t be able to defend them with anything more than a back scratcher.

Let’s hope the Virginia GOP grows some testicles and ensures that Terry’s proposals swirl the drain with the rest of the turds.

15 responses

  1. I’m sorry, but you’re blaming Libertarians for McAuliffe becoming governor? We didn’t nominate him, we didn’t vote for him! You want us to vote for a republican when we have an excellent Libertarian Party candidate on the ballot? What do we owe the republicans? They are big government statists just like the Dems. The Cooch ran the worst campaign I’ve ever seen and I’ve seen a lot. You wanna win, put up a candidate that will get more votes than the democrat and quit blaming Libertarians. According to exit polls, we took more dem votes than rep votes so you should be thanking us for making it close. We owe the republicans and democrats nothing except this crappy government that they put together!

    Like

    1. No. I’m blaming them for helping spread the propaganda that galvanized the paranoid. If you read what I previously wrote, I explaibed it pretty well. Yes, Cooch ran a shitty campaign. But what really out him over the top are the paranoid who thought he was going to crawl up their vaginas with a speculum from the governor’s mansion. The libertarians helped promote that image.

      Like

  2. I’ll take your word for it that libertarians helped promote that image, I certainly didn’t but some might have. I ran for Congress last month on the LP ticket and believe it or not, the reps and the dems helped promote false images of me! I think it’s called ‘politics’. I don’t like it but it is at the heart of every campaign. The Republican Party has been around long enough and thrown enough crap at their opponents that they should quit their whining and blaming third parties. They will get no sympathy from me.

    Like

    1. Trust me, tons of libertarians I know helped spread and promite that image. Cooch was not a perfect candidate. Far from it. But he was not bad, and he turned around on quite a few issues. And he had a decent chance of beating that statist horror we currently have. But both the Democrats and the libertarians glommed onto the “he wants to regulate your vagina” message – and boy, oh boy did they help spread that shit!

      Ive always been a proponent of winning on your iwn ability and message, instead of spreading lies about your opponent. Helping promite a false image of your opponent may help you win, but it dies nothing for the people who elect you and does every goddamn thing for the person runnung. “They do it too” is not an excuse.

      Like

      1. I wasn’t excusing it, I was just saying don’t whine when someone uses your tactics against you. The reps and dems have perfected dishonest campaign tactics. When Libertarians run their own candidate you can expect them to vote for them. Why would we do otherwise? To help a republican beat a democrat? How does that help us promote liberty? I would have preferred Cooch to McA but in a three man race they were tied for fourth in my book.

        Like

        1. You are missing the point. Politics as usual gets us the same shit every single time. When you have a crap sandwich, a fairly decent candidate, and one who is OK (I never considered Sarvis a great candidate, despite him being a libertarian), I will vote for the fairly decent candidate who actually has a chance ti win, which Cooch did. But the leftist scum banded with a huge number of libertarians to spread shit about the decent candidate. It’s NOT a way to promote liberty. It’s a way to promote yet another political party – this time the LP. Oh yay – they got 6 percent of the vote. What did that get them? Terry McAuliffe in the governor’s mansion and no appreciable showing in the Senate race this year. Yeah. So much for spreading that liberty! So instead of helping a decent – not perfect – candidate win, those who claim to love liberty decided to promote their political party at the expense of the voters and helped spread lies and misinformation, because OOH WE HAD A 6 PERCENT SHOWING! Whatever.

          Like

        2. I think you are way off the mark. Your complaint was that libertarians cost Cooch the election by spreading lies. As a Libertarian, I never heard any of that but if it is true, the reps shouldn’t whine until they clean up their own act. I don’t condone lies but the rep and dem parties are built on lies, smears, smoke and mirrors. It is not our job to get your candidate elected. It is our job to do better every election for our candidate. You imply that all we do is spread crap about republicans. No, we spread the truth about them and the democrats. I think you fail to understand that we don’t like republicans any more than we like democrats and we want them both to lose! (But I do like you and your blog!)

          Like

        3. I think you fail to understand my point. It’s not about parties. It’s about he candidates. The problem with libertarians – JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER PARTY – is that they want to promote the party. Actual liberty is secondary.

          And please stop putting words into my mouth that I never said. I never said it was the libertarians’ job to get a Republican elected. I always thought it was their job to get the best candidate elected. If you think that was Sarvis, then we disagree. I don’t believe he was the best candidate. But I thought our job was to promotw the best possible way to attain liberty. You think it is to elect libertarians.

          That is why I left the LP. And that is why I will never vote for a party. I vote for the candidate who best reflects my views.

          And by the way, my comolaint is that the libertarians HELPED Ken lose the elections by spreading the same kind of lies the Democrats did. Ken’s shoddy campaign did the rest. But high ground? You have none.

          Like

        4. It is our job to get a Libertarian elected because they are the best candidate. The reps and dems are the same thing. There is no difference between them. I promote the party because they nominate the best candidates. As to the rampant libertarian lie campaign, I never heard any of it. Not one word from any libertarians that I know and I know a lot of them. Maybe in a different part of the state but I didn’t hear of ANY. Libertarians will always get my vote because they are the only ones who promote liberty and liberty is my goal.

          Like

        5. We will just have to disagree on Sarvis being the best candidate, then.

          Like

  3. The analysis of exit polling and votes after the election [Virginia Libertarian here] showed that Sarvis drew more votes away from likely McAuliffe voters than from Cuccinelli.

    Like

    1. Point out where I said that Sarvis drew votes away from ANYONE. What I said was the idiots who voted with their twats gave McAuliffe the victory. And libertarians helped spread that message.

      Like

    2. Fair point, I conflated messaging with voting. But correct me if I’m mistaken, not having a vagina and all….wasn’t one of the key vagina-related issues in VA, of mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds? Perhaps, like Cuccinelli’s poor choice of running mate, he ought not have supported such.

      Like

      1. A) Cuccinelli didnt choose his running mate. The voters at the convention did.

        B) Cuccinelli did not support that ultrasound bill.

        Like

%d bloggers like this: