Another Day, Another Victory for Gun Rights, NRA, and Perriello

Last week, the NRA won a crucial exemption for itself and other large grassroots organization from a new campaign disclosure bill that passed the House of Representatives. A lot of liberals were upset because they hate the NRA and gun rights to their very core. Tom Perriello, who's been perfect on gun rights so far in Congress, came out strong in defense of the NRA.

Another day, and another victory for gun rights and the NRA. The Supreme Court has struck down some absurd gun control laws in Chicago that banned the ownership of handguns. And again, we find Perriello applauding the victory.

I questioned Robert Hurt's use of his NRA rating throughout the primary. I am still confused as to why he continues to push the issue. First, it's stupid to use it as a defense against the charge of raising taxes . . .

Tea Partier: Robert Hurt raised my taxes! I don't like him!

Hurtard: But Hurt like guns!

Tea Partier: I didn't complain about his stance on guns, I complained about taxes!

Hurtard: Guns! Abortion! Marriage! Conservative! La la la la la I'm not listening!

Tea Partier: Taxes Taxes Taxes Taxes!!! Why aren't you listening?!

That's pretty much the Republican primary this year.

Now the Hurtards are focusing on gun rights again, against Perriello. But again it's non-starter . . .

Hurtard: Vote for Robert! He likes guns!

Charlottesville Liberal: So does Tommy . . . grumble grumble

Hurtard: I'm still not listening because I cannot acknowledge that Perriello isn't as liberal as Tucker has told me!

If that's the general election I may move.

Hurt spent the primary convincing people that his A rating from the NRA meant he was conservative. He's now moving to the general election where Perriello will get the NRA endorsement. Hurt's primary logic would argue that this makes Perriello conservative. Hurt now has to explain how being conservative is more than just checking off boxes.

Governor McDonnell ran on a platform of positive, forward-thinking conservative proposals like privatizing the ABC stories and offshore drilling. Deeds ran against McDonnell and lost. Kilgore ran against Kaine and lost. Kerry ran against Bush and lost. Run against someone and people know what you're against, but not what you're for. Candidates that run on principles have a better chance at victory. Now is the time for Hurt to tell us what he is for.

Pat Mullins Undermines GOP

Pat Mullins just made a serious misstep that undermines the ongoing efforts of the Republican Party to defeat both Boucher and Perriello in the fall. And it also brings up additional questions about how serious the campaign against Glenn Nye is. The Republican Party of Virginia launched two new web ads asking if Boucher and Perriello were in attendance when the President of Mexico launched an attack on our 2nd Amendment rights. Great idea, except that both Boucher and Perriello have a pretty solid pro-gun record. Boucher has been endorsed by the NRA. So it's no surprise that the "gotcha" failed.

"I did not attend the speech," Rep. Boucher told The Ticket. "I oppose gun control. And my opposition to gun control has resulted in the National Rifle Assn. endorsing my reelection."

Not only that, adds Boucher spokeswoman Courtney Lamie, he's earned an A+ rating from the NRA.

Oh come on! Then something had to be up with that Perriello guy, right? He wasn't there but surely he was doing something anti-2nd Amendment during the speech. Maybe he was participating in one of those wussy turn-in-the-gun programs. The Virginia GOP could at least bat .500!

Perriello's press secretary, Jessica Barba, laughed when we told her about the ad mentioning that her boss was meeting with constituents during Calderon's speech.

"Shockingly, the ad was not well-researched," she told The Ticket. Barba included a letter to President Obama signed by her boss stating his opposition to Atty. Gen.l Eric Holder's "plan to reinstate the assault weapon ban."

"To even consider reinstating an "assault weapon" ban is an affront to our Founding Fathers, who so clearly understood the importance of the ordinary citizens' right to keep and bear arms," reads the letter.

The serious question isn't why Mullins gave the go ahead of an attack that would so clearly backfire. It's why he ignored Glenn Nye. Is the 2nd District some type of hot bed of gun control activities? Or is the GOP just not serious about taking out Glenn Nye? I've said before that the easy treatment of Nye could foreshadow a potential party switch in the future. This misstep by Mullins keeps the possibility on the table.