[Time is now]

How about you running?

[unixfox]

This guy has voted time and again against gun rights.

Typical RINO, get elected, do what he wants, not what the people want.

[YOUGOTIT]

Elect someone else. Donate money and time to get him defeated.

[gunsgodandglory]

Albo is a lightweight failure of a delegate. I hope he loses soon so we can get someone else in that seat. The party in Virginia has no respect for him. Time to move on. Demosissies can have his seat, we'll take it back next time.

[Dan from Michigan]

Ben:

1. When's the filing deadline?
2. Does he have a primary challenger?
3. How many people live in the state reps(or delegates) district?

My state rep (whose a good guy) won his first race on $8000 total. He was 22 years old when he did it and won by knocking on 15000 doors. The primary was extremely tough and the general was fairly easy(It's a 60%+ GOP district). This was even without social issues making a difference as all of the candidates in the primary ran as conservatives. Usually a state rep campaign costs $30000 or more.

If your rep is a gun grabber, and no one is up to the task of running - go for it. If you are going for it however, announce EARLY and start running today. I'd also contact the gun groups(state level), and all the gun clubs about this. Gun activists are some of the best volunteers around if they are mad.

If your rep is weak on other issues as well, exploit them. Taxes and life are the other two major ones.

If you run, I wouldn't run a single issue campaign, but I'd certainly make sure your second amendment views and his second amendment views are well know to the right people.

[Yuengling]

bensykes and gunsgodandglory look like Werkheiser trolls to me.

Werkheiser is a tough opponent, and his supporters would like nothing more than to split the conservatives. They think they'll have a better chance in November if Albo is hurt by interparty squabbles.

If you have a problem with ANY legislation that Del. Albo has voted on, please contact him and ask about it. I am sure that he'll be happy to explain it.

[vannrox]

...Mordue held that Bach could not allege a constitutional right to bear arms because the "Second Amendment is not a source of individual rights."...

IGNORANT OR INTENTIONALLY REVISIONIST JUDGES!

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights

---

[This is a note to me from Dr. Linda Thompson of the American Justice Federation that I am passing along to everyone...email me with your comments ken]

[to ken]
You left off the MOST IMPORTANT PART of the Bill of Rights -- the PREAMBLE which tells SPECIFICALLY that the Bill of Rights was to make sure the government knew it was limited to the powers stated in the Constitution and if it didn't, the amendments were rights of the people the government couldn't screw with.
Our revisionist historians ALWAYS leave this off the Constitution!!!
Here's a copy!!!

---

Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

---

The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the powers of our Constitution.

There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the amendments are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.

End the deception.