Disgusted with the NRA


PDA






paradox998
September 28, 2010, 06:13 PM
Why did I purchase a life membership in the NRA? They just announced that they are endorsing Scott Murphy, a left-wing liberal over Chris Gibson a conservative, pro-second amendment, decorated veteran. Gibson recieved at top rating from the NRA and they snub him. This is a congressional race in upstate NY.

How do I get my money back? Never another dime to the NRA unless they change this endorsement. :fire:

If you enjoyed reading about "Disgusted with the NRA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Vyacheslav
September 28, 2010, 06:20 PM
“I commend the United States Supreme Court for protecting our constitutional right to bear arms. I was honored to lend my voice to this case by signing an Amicus Brief because the government does not have the right to violate the 2nd Amendment and strip American citizens of this critical freedom. This landmark decision will further strengthen the constitutional precedent and protect our rights from unjust laws for years to come.” - scott murphy

The NRA is a pro second amendment group, not a pro republican group, scott murphy is just as pro gun if not more than chris gibson. the NRA does not and should not look at party affiliation when endorsing a candidate.

Carl Levitian
September 28, 2010, 06:26 PM
“I commend the United States Supreme Court for protecting our constitutional right to bear arms. I was honored to lend my voice to this case by signing an Amicus Brief because the government does not have the right to violate the 2nd Amendment and strip American citizens of this critical freedom. This landmark decision will further strengthen the constitutional precedent and protect our rights from unjust laws for years to come.” - scott murphy

The NRA is a pro second amendment group, not a pro republican group, scott murphy is just as pro gun if not more than chris gibson. the NRA does not and should not look at party affiliation when endorsing a candidate."


A small but very important fact that many gun owners need to think about. There are many pro gun dem's from western states that are more pro second amendment than their democrat opponents. Look at the PERSON running for office! Blind ticket voting is a road to disaster.

Deavis
September 28, 2010, 06:28 PM
The NRA's mission is to protect the 2nd amendment, if it helps promote conservatism that is great but it is not its primary mission according to its leadership. They also support a proven candidate based on thier answer to the NRA questionaire and their voting record. According to the NRA endorsement, Scott has a solid record and good answers. That is why they are supporting him but they also gave Gibson a solid grade too, an A as well. So, go cast your vote how you want, but don't let partisan emotions get the better of you in this case.

QuietEarp
September 28, 2010, 07:23 PM
The 3 replies to the OP are perfect. The NRA is not and should not be affiliated with either political party. It should make its endorsements based solely on 2nd Amendment issues. In the grand scheme of things this means endorsing some Democrats.
People like Scott Murphy vote differently than most Democrats. This is great and should be encouraged as a pro gun Republican is preaching to the choir in many ways. It can take the 2nd Amendment issues to a different level away from the political red and blue garbage.

essayons21
September 28, 2010, 07:29 PM
The 3 replies to the OP are perfect. The NRA is not and should not be affiliated with either political party. It should make its endorsements based solely on 2nd Amendment issues. In the grand scheme of things this means endorsing some Democrats.
People like Scott Murphy vote differently than most Democrats. This is great and should be encouraged as a pro gun Republican is preaching to the choir in many ways. It can take the 2nd Amendment issues to a different level away from the political red and blue garbage.The 3 replies to the OP are perfect. The NRA is not and should not be affiliated with either political party. It should make its endorsements based solely on 2nd Amendment issues. In the grand scheme of things this means endorsing some Democrats.
People like Scott Murphy vote differently than most Democrats. This is great and should be encouraged as a pro gun Republican is preaching to the choir in many ways. It can take the 2nd Amendment issues to a different level away from the political red and blue garbage.

There are too many instances of pro-2A Democrats who had great records in state politics and said great things in campaign speeches, but ended up voting along the party line on the national stage.

While party affiliation should be secondary to actual voting record for NRA endorsements, it shouldn't count for nothing. The NRA has shot itself in the foot (har) too many times this way. If both candidates have similarly positive voting records on 2A issues, the candidate who belongs to the party which more consistently is pro-2A should see that reflected in the NRA's endorsement. Their current method of endorsement seems naive and overly simplified.

paradox998
September 28, 2010, 07:31 PM
Well if the NRA believes they are both equally qualified to defend the 2nd amendment, why endorse either one? I also have little faith in surveys completed by incumbent politicians. Wow, support for the 2nd amendment on a survey sent by the NRA to a sitting member of Congress. Who would have guessed that?

cavman
September 28, 2010, 07:54 PM
I have referenced an article that addresses this very issue. The author has written an amicus brief regarding MacDonald and Heller and goes race by race for the Senate.

He discusses briefly the candidates and how one may be more pro 2nd than the other. He then raises the difficult scenario of what might happen if certain circumstances occur.

Here is the thread:
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=546360

Here is the article referenced in the thread:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/gun-rights-and-the-2010-senate-elections-103877488.html

note please be careful in discussing as this really borders on Political. What I found interesting is the author's conclusion that things could be actually worse for the 2nd Amendment if voters strictly voted for the best 2nd amendment candidate.

SSN Vet
September 28, 2010, 08:06 PM
Well, is Scott Murphey going to caucus with the pro-gun crowd or the anti crowd?

And most importantly, is he more or less likely to support a Democratic Party Predidents Supreme Court nomination than Chris Gibson?

Vector
September 28, 2010, 08:07 PM
While I agree with those who say vote the person, not the party, it is tough to vote for someone who believes in things you do not just because they are pro gun.


<.................>

Carl N. Brown
September 28, 2010, 08:18 PM
I joined the NRA, not the RNC.

If NRA endorse a pro-gun rights liberal democrat, I will consider it, or vote for an equally pro-gun rights conservative republican, depending on the individual candidate's overall position on all issues of interest to me, plus odds of winning.

There are jackasses in the Democratic party, and rhinos in the Republican party, and individual candidates should matter. It is bad for gun rights people to expect to be written off by Dems or taken for granted by Repubs.

daorhgih
September 28, 2010, 08:18 PM
Does anyone here, whether NRA-member or no, actually trust the NRA organization to endorse the "right" candidate every time? Of course not. And why would we listen to the NRA telling us how to vote, in their opinion, on any topic, and why should the NRA even endorse candidates anyway? BTW the NRA endorsed Harry Reid, and gave him almost the max in contributions, plus a $10,000 shotgun, but then changed their mind after membership made a stink, and UN-endorsed Reid, but did NOT get back either the $$$$$ or the shotgun. And some wonder why Wayne LaPierre is not so well loved??

jcwit
September 28, 2010, 08:28 PM
Just when did the NRA endorse Harry Reid? Lets be specific about this if you're going to make accusations.

oneounceload
September 28, 2010, 09:37 PM
If you are betting the future of this country on one solitary issue, you may want to rethink that position...............

daorhgih
September 28, 2010, 09:42 PM
From The Buckeye Firearms Association e-letter:


Texas bank posts sign encouraging concealed carry
Submitted by cbaus on Fri, 09/24/2010 - 07:00. Guns in the News
The Brenham Banner-Press in Texas reported recently that a bank in Chappell Hill, TX (about half-way between Houston and Austin) removed a "no-guns" sign over the summer and put up a sign of an altogether different kind.
From the article:
Any would-be robbers looking to walk into the bank here had best think twice.
There's a new sign in town.
About a month ago, Chappell Hill Bank president Edward Smith looked at a sign on the front door prohibiting concealed weapons from his business and decided to make a policy change.
Licensed to carry a handgun? Come on in, and bring your weapon.
The sign, now prominently displayed on the bank's front door, says, "Lawful concealed carry permitted on these premises. Management recognizes the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as an inalienable right of all citizens. We therefore support and encourage the carrying of licensed concealed weapons."
Smith told the newspaper he made the policy change to send a warning to potential robbers, and also to express support to Americans' right to bear arms.
"We had the sign on the window, the red circle with the pistol inside and a line through it. And I started thinking, 'We've got this no gun sign up and the guy (robber) can come in and do what he wants.
"But if you've got a policy allowing handguns, he won't know how many people are going to be in here carrying a concealed weapon."
According to the story, the bank has been robbed twice in the last three years, including last March when a Western-attired man walked in, ordered bank employees to fill a canvas bag with money and then fled in a pickup truck. The man, who did not brandish a weapon, has not been caught.
The sign has made Chappell Hill Bank and Smith somewhat of an Internet sensation. A photo of the sign has made its way around the world, and Smith has even been interviewed for
the National Rifle Association's radio network (http://www.nranews.com/#/nranews).
He's also been contacted by other media outlets wanting to do stories.
"It's kind of gotten a life of its own," he said.
Expressions of support have far outnumbered criticism.

RONSERESURPLUS
September 28, 2010, 09:48 PM
Hello all, RON L here - SERE SURPLUS

I have Written off the NRA for Decades now! They have done a lot of good over time, but I just can't forget all the ties that they sold out, left us hanging and abandoned some Gun owners as they were not the mianstream of gun ownership, I'm speaking of Class 3, as well as so many Places the NRA will not even lift a finget to help a Gun owner if they feel it's a lost cause (Like CA)! No, better to support smaller, local groups that do represent your rights and not Folks Like La Peirre and oithrs that are more Political than Gun Rights minded! Just my Opinion, but one formed from over 45 years of Gun ownership!

daorhgih
September 28, 2010, 09:49 PM
They MAY endorse, they WILL endorse, they WON'T endorse, the CHANGE their endorsement ... ... how many news-stories can you find and read on your own?? O Googled and found 13. Take your pick.
www.examiner.com/.../nra-controversy-flares-up-again-over-harry-reid - - at his point the do not endorse, but they HAVE endorsed, but changed their mind under pressure for the membership. How could the NRA have read us so wrong??

jcwit
September 28, 2010, 10:06 PM
They MAY endorse, they WILL endorse, they WON'T endorse, the CHANGE their endorsement ... ... how many news-stories can you find and read on your own?? O Googled and found 13. Take your pick.
http://www.examiner.com/.../nra-cont...ver-harry-reid - - at his point the do not endorse, but they HAVE endorsed, but changed their mind under pressure for the membership. How could the NRA have read us so wrong??


Link doesn't work. You made the accusation, you provide the proof. Not my job to look it up. You provide the proof.

Lets see the actual endorsement put forth by the NRA.

As far as reading on my own, I'm able to do that very well, Thank You.

Prion
September 28, 2010, 10:16 PM
I have Written off the NRA for Decades now!

Well, I think I've just written off Sere Surplus. Sorry, Ron.

rscalzo
September 28, 2010, 10:22 PM
Great reason not to vote the party. Our great Republican Governor. Wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j299/rscalzo/Christie1995001.jpg

In 08 the NRA in NH had their ratings all screwed up pissing off some good friends.

PR-NJ
September 28, 2010, 11:30 PM
For the most part, I really, really dislike Harry Reid's politics, and I personally do not know if he is pro- or anti-2nd Amendment. However, I am an NRA member and I'm fairly confident that the NRA has a team of very smart people monitoring the voting records of elected officials with regard to gun-related issues.

Let me share this observation, for the past two years we have had a liberal, Democratic president (from that gun-loving City of Chicago), a Democratic majority in the House, and pretty much a Democratic super majority in the Senate. As far as I can tell, there has been no Federal anti-gun legislation seriously considered by Congress during this period.

My two cents.

MinnMooney
September 29, 2010, 12:50 AM
I see that many of THR'rs know that the NRA doesn't just back Repulicans but what they really look at is which candidate has the best 2nd amendment (as well as other amendments and the constitution in general) voting record.

JohnKSa
September 29, 2010, 01:27 AM
While I agree with those who say vote the person, not the party, it is tough to vote for someone who believes in things you do not just because they are pro gun.Here's a simple solution. If you are not a single-issue voter then don't make your voting decisions based on the endorsements of a single-issue organization.

The NRA is a single-issue organization and they make their endorsements based on that single issue. And they don't try to keep it a secret.

If you have other issues that you consider when choosing a candidate then you're certainly free to do so. Being an NRA member doesn't constrain you to vote based exclusively on their endorsements. All their endorsements say is that a particular candidate is, in their opinion, the best candidate to support the SINGLE issue they are concerned with.

alsaqr
September 29, 2010, 07:38 AM
The NRA is a pro second amendment group, not a pro republican group, scott murphy is just as pro gun if not more than chris gibson. the NRA does not and should not look at party affiliation when endorsing a candidate.

Exactly. The so called "conservatives" did nothing for US gunowners when they ran the US congress and the white house.

1. They could have rolled back the restrictions placed on the importation of semi-auto firearms put in place by Bush I and Clinton but they did not.

2. They could have rolled back some of the GCA of 1968 but they did not.

3. They could have eliminated the Hughes amendment restrictions on full auto firearms but they did not.

4. They could have eliminated the prohibition on carry in national parks but they did not.

They did nothing for us when they ran everything: Now they want us to buy into their entire program of feel good stuff. i could care less that the pro-gun politician is a John Brown
type Christian preacher or a lesbian Wiccan doctor who gives abortions. This anti-NRA trash is being spewed out by Eric Erickson at red states and by other far outers.

FROGO207
September 29, 2010, 07:58 AM
IMHO the NRA does a fair job of being pro 2A. YOU have to own the responsibility of the research and your resulting vote. The NRA is only endorsing a person that it thinks will do the best job, you have the vote and need to do the in depth research. I do not take this lightly and do lots of data gathering before casting a vote. We all should do that every election. It is your responsibility as a US citizen and one vote does indeed matter. BTW I am one of those Independent voters. Not party affiliated in the least.:cool: That said does the OP have a better recommended lobbying group for 2A rights that I should be investigating??:(

A politician is like a bullet and a vote is like a firearm. You have to aim one to make the other count.

Kwanger
September 29, 2010, 09:03 AM
Why did I purchase a life membership in the NRA? They just announced that they are endorsing Scott Murphy, a left-wing liberal over Chris Gibson a conservative, pro-second amendment, decorated veteran. Gibson recieved at top rating from the NRA and they snub him. This is a congressional race in upstate NY.

How do I get my money back? Never another dime to the NRA unless they change this endorsement. :fire:
Don't be disgusted with them - reasons have already been well covered above. IMO it's a very good thing that the NRA is getting away from the "Republican Stooges" image of the past - this will win them more friends than enemies.

In my area, the NRA endorsed candidate is also the other side of the fence from my political views (I do vote the party, not the person) - I'm not a single issue voter, therefore, I won't be able to vote that way. However - if an endorsed candidate was in tune with my political views, the fact that he/she was Pro 2a, would probably swing me to vote that way over another candidate from the same party - and it would be thanks to the NRA for letting me know.

Unless you are a single issue voter (which 99% of the population aren't), the fact that the NRA endorses a candidate should just be taken into consideration at the polls, rather than be taken as the be all and end all.

jimmyraythomason
September 29, 2010, 09:38 AM
In my area, the NRA endorsed candidate is also the other side of the fence from my political views (I do vote the party, not the person) - I'm not a single issue voter, therefore, I won't be able to vote that way. However - if an endorsed candidate was in tune with my political views, the fact that he/she was Pro 2a, would probably swing me to vote that way over another candidate from the same party - and it would be thanks to the NRA for letting me know.
That pretty much says it for me too. I never allow ANY group to sway my vote. I try to educate myself on how a candidate stands on ALL issues that concern me and vote accordingly(with-in my party of choice).

statelineblues
September 29, 2010, 04:38 PM
So....

The NRA endorses a candidate;
Your local newspaper endorses a candidate;
Labor unions endorse a candidate;
Local businesses endorse candidates;
etc...

It's up to you to decide who to vote for and why.

The NRA does A LOT more than just act as a political group - and that's why I support them.

hirundo82
September 29, 2010, 09:40 PM
Seniority also matters in politics. It determines who is the majority leader and who becomes chair of important committees.

The majority leader assigns bills to committees and can effectively kill a bill by assigning it to a hostile committee. Committee chairs have the power to kill bills they don't like by keeping them from being considered in the committee.

No matter what you think about Harry Reid on other issues, he has been useful on Second Amendment issues. He was instrumental in working with the NRA to get national park carry and national reciprocity to a vote. He has also kept any anti-gun bills from getting to a vote.

If Reid loses his race but the Democrats keep control of the Senate, the next majority leader won't be as sympathetic to gun rights. The next majority leader would likely be Chuck Schumer (D-NY) or Dick Durbin (D-IL), both of whom are openly hostile to gun rights.

HGUNHNTR
September 29, 2010, 09:58 PM
I support the NRA's decision.

DenaliPark
September 29, 2010, 11:22 PM
“I commend the United States Supreme Court for protecting our constitutional right to bear arms. I was honored to lend my voice to this case by signing an Amicus Brief because the government does not have the right to violate the 2nd Amendment and strip American citizens of this critical freedom. This landmark decision will further strengthen the constitutional precedent and protect our rights from unjust laws for years to come.” - scott murphy

The NRA is a pro second amendment group, not a pro republican group, scott murphy is just as pro gun if not more than chris gibson. the NRA does not and should not look at party affiliation when endorsing a candidate.
Touche....

Art Eatman
September 29, 2010, 11:45 PM
'Nuf pollytickin'.

Re-read Post #29. That's what realpolitik is all about, particularly for a single-issue organization.

If you enjoyed reading about "Disgusted with the NRA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!