NRA and Libertarians

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
368
Location
Kansas City area
Many of us, who are NRA members, recently got the latest issue of The Rifleman. In the center, there was the NRA recommendations for the upcoming elections. One fact that was clear is that the NRA will not endorse a Libertarian.

I happen to know that in the State of Kansas, and also in Missouri, there were a number of Libertarians that are NRA members running against either Republicans (RINOs) or Democrats that were totally opposed to all gun rights and, at best, the NRA had no recommendation or recommended the Republican or Democrat.

It seems that, no matter what the party label, if you've got a strong gun rights advocate, you recommend them, unless your agenda is not principles or the Second Amendment but back room politics as usual. I wonder how the Gun Owners of America stands on this.

Does anyone know of any race in the country where the NRA is recommending a Libertarian?

Bob
 
I don't, I was also shocked to see Ron Paul, who votes against most everything as being "unconstitutional", only got a B+.

--wally.
 
The NRA doesn't hate Libertarians.

There are 2 main criteria for getting an endorsement from the NRA.

1) you have to be pro gun (likely have to score an "A")
2) you have to be able (and for that matter likely) to win.

Here in Colorado I noticed that there were several incumbent Democrats that got the NRA's endorsement over their Republican challengers when both had "A" ratings because in any race the incumbent is more likely to win.

Libertarians rarely win elections.
 
Zundfolge is correct.

The NRA wants to be able to say "95 percent (or whatever) of our endorsed candidates won". Being able to say that makes them a more powerful lobby in Washington (and more feared by politicians).
 
To reiterate, a vote for a third party is perceived to be a vote wasted in present day US politics.

I look forward to a three or even four party system, but I will not hold my breath.
 
People are free to perceive whatever they'd like, of course, but a vote for the apparent lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

And letting a worse evil win out over a lesser evil is what?
 
I had a conversation w/ some well placed NRA folks on this topic.

Previous posters are correct: The NRA will not back candidate unlikely to win.

For good or for ill, the structure of our first through the post, winner takes the district voting system is such that 3rd party candidates simply don't have realistic chances of winning.

Folks need to factor that into their voting strategy.
 
I find it funny that so many people say a vote for a third party is throwing away your vote...you know, if enough people threw their vote away, I wonder who would win?

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you're goal is to pick the winner like politics is a horse race, fair enough. If your goal is change and improvement, picking the winner isn't always the best choice.

Wonder what would happen if a Libertarian managed to get 22% of the vote, even if they lost...what happens next election? There's something to be said for encouragement through making a showing; sometimes you have to take a few licks and get back up to go on and land your punches and win the fight...dodging every hit and going to the ropes every other minute becasue ti's the safe play isn't a winning strategy, it's an avoding a loss strategy.
 
Well....I'm not overly fond of the "open borders" thing.

Then again, all I know about Libertarians is that they support 2A :D:) :cool: and oppose borders... :confused: :what: :scrutiny:
 
A reason to oppose borders is that any control the government can use to keep others out, will ultimately be used to keep us in. Your papers please, comrade.

You want to fight the culture war, hit the businesses that give the illegals incentives to come here in the first place. Employ an illegal, lose your tax ID and business license and pay a huge honkin fine plus tax penalties through an audit from the IRS.

Problem solved; mice don't breed where they can't eat.
 
I find it funny that so many people say a vote for a third party is throwing away your vote....It's a self-fulfilling prophecy,


Unfortunately, it's more than a self fulfilling prophecy.

Read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_Law
 
NineseveN:
In Britain, in the '80s, there was a no hope-no chance third party called the Liberal Democrats. (Ok, ignore the name for a minute.)
The Conservatives are blue in the UK, Labour (sic) is red, the LibDems chose yellow.
Everyone laughed.
Everyone said if you vote for them it's a vote wasted.

Then little by little they improved their share of the House.

Now they are a real party, and get votes, and might win next time.
 
Not that I don't agree with the suggestions of laying the smacketh down on people/businesses that employ illegal aliens...

But my main concern is, how does that help prevent someone from walking from Mexico into Texas with a nuke or something...???
 
But my main concern is, how does that help prevent someone from walking from Mexico into Texas with a nuke or something...???

The same thing that's to stop someone from building a nuke here on home field...law enforcement, investigation, prosecution and swift, decided action. Shortcuts aren't the way, arguing for closing us off entirely is akin to arguing that we all need video cameras installed in every square inch of the country, to be sure that no one's building a nuke.

Safety sounds nice, but not when liberty can be jeopardized by it. No one is safe when they're under someone else's control, despite illusions to the contrary.
 
Green Lantern -The biggest benefit would be that if Border Patrol isn't chasing thousands of Mexicans every day, they will have more resources to notice the real threats when they are fewer and farther between. Tracking 10 targets at a time instead of 1000.
 
At the Gun Rights Policy Conference in 2003, Michael Badnarick asked why NRA doesn't endorse independent candidates. The NRA speaker said "The (I) after your name on the ballot stands for irrelevant."
 
What did you think about the counter examples and converse at the bottom?

In some of the cases, with the 3 way systems, I considered the two minor parties counterbalancing in opposition to one dominant party to be functionally a single party, albeit operating under different branding. In other cases, I think it's probably a transitional case, where previously dominant parties have fractured, and are still in explorator mode prior to the consolidation phase.

Our own 2 big parties aren't exactly homogenous: they have internal fault lines, and are essentially coalitions in and of themselves.

Being fairly static and entrenched, it will take some major disruption or collapse to disrupt the stability of our system such as to give a third party a chance.

There are some speculative scenarios under which that might happen, but the thing is that since none of those scenarios are imminent, and therefore a matter of abstract theory rather than of practical value for THIS election.

Normally, what happens in American politics is that a party will implode after failing to gain traction for a certain number of cycles, and will undergo internal reorg and realignment, as the internal factions vie for control. It's during these periods that 3rd party planks tend to get assimilated in.
 
When published in American Rifleman, the endorsement sheet mentions that libertarians are, by definition, pro-gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top