NRA may endorse Harry Reid..... Sellout #... I am loosing track

Status
Not open for further replies.
sorry everyone........ i am not an old timer when it comes to guns, so i don't have loyalties to any group, especially the NRA.

all you folk who are life members, that's all fine and dandy, but don't persecute me because i refuse to drink the koolaid served up in American Rifleman.
 
Pointing out BS is persecution?
Click to expand...

not having a sunshine and lollipop opinion about the NRA around gun owners is like walking into a communist convention and having a bad opinion about stalin.

since i live in Nevada, many of my peers share my views as we are the ones who need to de-throne hairy.

that day in march when the NRA was pleasuring themselves over Hairy and the shooting park in Vegas, almost ALL of the gun owners were in Searchlight protesting that pig. The only people at the park were harry, the nra and the media. that should tell everyone something. Most out here knew it was a political stunt even before it happened.

The park is nice - i've been there, but i cannot for one second understand how a organization focused on the 2a can cozy up with tyrants who despise all the other rights and freedoms we have that are supposedly protected by the 2a.

Doesn't make sense.
 
but don't persecute me because i refuse to drink the koolaid served up in American Rifleman.
Click to expand...
That's fine. But you should either accept and agree with the criticism raised in this thread or offer honest, decisive defenses of the position you espoused (well, quoted anyway) in your opening post.

Simply responding to the criticism with cries of "persecution" makes your (borrowed) claims seem groundless.
 
As somebody in another forum pointed out, Reid has and will continue to vote for the most virulently anti-gun Supreme Court nominees. Those votes are the most important votes of our times, not only for gun rights but all civil liberties.

The NRA is out of their freaking minds!
 
That's fine. But you should either accept and agree with the criticism raised in this thread or offer honest, decisive defenses of the position you espoused (well, quoted anyway) in your opening post.

Simply responding to the criticism with cries of "persecution" makes your (borrowed) claims seem groundless.
Click to expand...

see above.....
 
Your anger is obvious, but it's no substitute for eloquence.

All I get from your posts is that there's a semi-literate guy who claims to be be from Nevada, and he's pissed off.

Do you REALLY think that sort of thing will win anyone over?

I want Harry Reid out of the Senate as much as anyone, but I don't expect the NRA to take up every damned cause I ever care about. Actually, I think it would be a terrible idea. But more importantly, don't expect everyone in the world to share your anger, when you can't say anything articulate about why you're angry.

Of COURSE it was a political stunt. NEWS FLASH: it would be a political stunt, no matter which politician did it! What planet have you spent your life on, anyway?

Calm down and think about how to achieve victory. We don't need chaotic anger on our side. We've got enough, already. We need focus.
 
The park is nice - i've been there, but i cannot for one second understand how a organization focused on the 2a can cozy up with tyrants who despise all the other rights and freedoms we have that are supposedly protected by the 2a.
Click to expand...

You don't understand why an organization in which their only focus is guns & gun rights doesn't pay attention to the other rights?

I can understand wanting to remove Harry from office for the other issues, but I don't expect the NRA to do anything except focus on their goals. In fact, I would prefer that they stay out of the other issues rather then dilute their message.
 
Your anger is obvious, but it's no substitute for eloquence.

All I get from your posts is that there's a semi-literate guy who claims to be be from Nevada, and he's pissed off.

Do you REALLY think that sort of thing will win anyone over?

I want Harry Reid out of the Senate as much as anyone, but I don't expect the NRA to take up every damned cause I ever care about. Actually, I think it would be a terrible idea. But more importantly, don't expect everyone in the world to share your anger, when you can't say anything articulate about why you're angry.

Of COURSE it was a political stunt. NEWS FLASH: it would be a political stunt, no matter which politician did it! What planet have you spent your life on, anyway?

Calm down and think about how to achieve victory. We don't need chaotic anger on our side. We've got enough, already. We need focus.
Click to expand...

I think I explained why I am angry quite well.


(emphasis on literacy and articulation here)

You don't understand why an organization in which their only focus is guns & gun rights doesn't pay attention to the other rights?

I can understand wanting to remove Harry from office for the other issues, but I don't expect the NRA to do anything except focus on their goals. In fact, I would prefer that they stay out of the other issues rather then dilute their message.
Click to expand...

I agree with you - to some extent, however... "people will know who you are by the friends you keep".
 
Last edited:
LHN, Angle may win, and I hope she does. But is she a shoo-in? Is it possible that other people besides gun owners have opinions? And somehow a majority might favor Reid? (Perish the thought.)

Reid's earmark apparently did a Good Thing for Nevada shooters. I'd bet that the gun owners who were at the gathering and who were against Reid were there for all the other issues besides guns.

Given the uncertainties of politics, why turn a friend into a foe? What did it cost the NRA with respect to Reid, himself, to "make nice" on behalf of shooters?

Repeat after me: It is not a betrayal of one's principles to be courteous, polite and gracious toward an opponent. (I may have to kill you, but that in no way requires that I be rude and discourteous.)
 
LHN, Angle may win, and I hope she does. But is she a shoo-in? Is it possible that other people besides gun owners have opinions? And somehow a majority might favor Reid? (Perish the thought.)

Reid's earmark apparently did a Good Thing for Nevada shooters. I'd bet that the gun owners who were at the gathering and who were against Reid were there for all the other issues besides guns.

Given the uncertainties of politics, why turn a friend into a foe? What did it cost the NRA with respect to Reid, himself, to "make nice" on behalf of shooters?

Repeat after me: It is not a betrayal of one's principles to be courteous, polite and gracious toward an opponent. (I may have to kill you, but that in no way requires that I be rude and discourteous.)
Click to expand...

In all actuality, what the park will end up doing in the long run is allowing the BLM and local govt. to shut down shooting spots in the desert that we cherish as well as dissolve a private club in favor of real estate developers. The park is nice, but i have a feeling (as do many of my peers) that gun owners will be herded there as it will be the only place to shoot.
 
For all those people who think that the NRA getting cozy with harry reid's campaign is a good thing, I say what are you thinking? By his leadership in the Senate, he has personally pushed the health care bill through, and several lesser bills which are no less damaging to America's economy. Everything that obama truly wanted to accomplish has been done regardless of America's opposition, and harry was the cheerleader. In many people's eyes, including mine, harry is the enemy who needs to be defeated in the November election. IMO, it's not all about RKBA, it's the big picture, and that is taking back control of the house and senate and allowing obama to wither on the vine.
If it's true about the NRA, it's tantamount to sleeping with the enemy, and I find that unacceptable.



NCsmitty
 
As already mentioned its not about political party its about what the senator votes on or has voted on. The NRA is just a large lobbyist and if they have Reid in their pocket then great. Thats good news for Gun owners. Who cares if hes a demorat. Im sure enough repubs will be voted in to even the senate out. Hey I have a crazy idea..... Why not back the Constitution Party. Never heard of it? Yah they are too small to show up on the radar, but have a great agenda.
 
As already mentioned its not about political party its about what the senator votes on or has voted on. The NRA is just a large lobbyist and if they have Reid in their pocket then great. Thats good news for Gun owners. Who cares if hes a demorat. Im sure enough repubs will be voted in to even the senate out. Hey I have a crazy idea..... Why not back the Constitution Party. Never heard of it? Yah they are too small to show up on the radar, but have a great agenda.
Click to expand...

the NRA needs to remember that MOST of their members are conservatives and want their country back, not to mention despise Reid and his ilk on capital hill and the white house. They have an opportunity to endorse Angle.... they would be wise to do so.

Right now, it is politically unpopular to be anti-gun, but i am sure if there was enough political capital to be gained, Reid would side with the anti's in a heartbeat. He's a corrupt politician. Them endorsing Reid is tantamount to them endorsing corruption.
 
I don't believe the "sources" quoted by redstate, whatever that is. I don't believe anything coming out of redstate.com. In fact, I think the only purpose of redstate.com is to whip up a bunch of people about a whole lot of utter nonsense.
 
Last edited:
the NRA needs to remember that MOST of their members are conservatives and want their country back
Click to expand...
No, they don't. They NEED to remember that the RKBA is not a liberal-vs-conservative issue, and that support for the RKBA is not the exclusive province of any political party. Assuming that they remain focused on, you know, the RKBA and not any other social issue, they dang well better not get involved with 'getting their country back'.

I do not know why so many in our community insist on confusing being a 'modern political liberal' with being an opponent of the RKBA, or alternatively associating being a 'modern political conservative' with being a supporter of the RKBA. I cannot think of a more self-destructive approach to furthering the RKBA than that.

We also need to be mindful that political discussions are verboten on THR, and only those discussions that are centered around the RKBA are on-topic.
 
Reid has been excellent on gun issues. Whether one disagrees with him on other issues is irrelevant to an endorsement by an organization focused exclusively on gun rights.

If you don't like Reid because you don't like his positions on other issues, then vote the other issues. There are other organizations that rate candidates on issues other than guns, and you can consider those endorsements and ratings as well in making your decision.

But from the NRA standpoint, it comes down to "how good, and how proven, is this candidate on gun issues?" And Reid has been very, very good.

the NRA needs to remember that MOST of their members are conservatives and want their country back
Click to expand...
I am not a conservative, and I want the NRA making endorsements based on a candidate's track record on guns, not on "conservative issues."
 
Last edited:
LOL, just thinking: given how poorly Reid is polling, it probably doesn't matter who endorses him. The cookie monster has a good shot of beating Reid this year! :p
 
I am not a conservative, and I want the NRA making endorsements based on a candidate's track record on guns, not on "conservative issues."
Click to expand...

+1

I used to be a conservative until the new "conservatives" re-defined conservatism to be a bunch of feel good stuff. I will vote for the pro-gunner over everything else, every time. I do not care if the pro-gun politician is a right wing Baptist preacher or an ultra left wing lesbian Wiccan: The pro-gunner gets my vote very time.
 
Well he opened that range in Clark County, Nevada awhile back. I read it in an old American Rifleman magazine.

I would vote for anyone that seems honestly pro-gun, and its not always Republicans.
 
Last edited:
"Conservative" means different things at different times and in different places. Hot-button "liberal" and "conservative" issues come and go, and switch sides. The words change meaning, the politicians change parties, the parties change their platforms.

The NRA would be worse than useless if it got caught up in all these other political disputes. By taking sides, it would alienate some people and attract nobody. By using up time, money and political capital, it would destroy any possible effectiveness the NRA has with RKBA issues. RKBA has to stand on its own as an issue, no matter what label it gets on any given day, and so does the NRA if it wants to have any success at all.

Does anyone REALLY think the NRA would be more effective as a gun-rights organization if it got caught up in the politics of: stem-cell research, bank bailouts, gay marriage, changes in the tax code, energy policy, military spending, Medicare compensation, school prayer or any of the myriad other things that are in the news today, forgotten tomorrow, and in the news again the day after? Some of them may seem important at the time, too, and then seem totally stupid soon after.

It doesn't matter which side of any of these issues you find yourself on, or if you are ambivalent. I think it is very clear that the NRA would only stand to lose effectiveness in working for gun rights, and alienate people who could be allies or members, if it picked sides in all or any of these other issues.

Really. Take a breath, and think it through for a second.

It's no fun being a grownup, though, is it?:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Right now, it is politically unpopular to be anti-gun, but i am sure if there was enough political capital to be gained, Reid would side with the anti's in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

He's already sided with the anti's on any number of votes. He voted for Sotomayor, he'll vote to confirm Kagan. It is these votes that will destroy gun rights in this country and paying lip service to some minor votes to get the NRA on his side counts for nothing against his votes for virulent leftists to staff the Supreme Court.
 
I'm a life member of the NRA - if I don't like their policies I can let them know and I can vote in their regular elections.

I don't agree with the NRA on all their policies and decisions - I had serious problems with their early dealings with the Heller case.

But this is not a case where I disagree with the NRA - I'm sure republican partisans are upset with the NRA - but too bad - they're just upset because their candidate isn't getting the endorsement.

As has been stated the NRA is primarily a single focus organization - one that focuses on the 2nd amendment and the RKBA. The worst thing the NRA could do would be to endorse the politicians of one party. If the NRA were to endorse the politicians of only one party then they could be taken for granted by that party and lose all leverage with the other party too and the NRA would quickly become a non-power in the lobby game. Think about it - republicans wouldn't really have to do anything to get the endorsement and Democrats wouldn't even take the NRA's phone calls - cause they would have already written off the votes. as much as I personally may not care for Senator Reid and most of the policies he endorses - that fact remains that he is a supporter of gun rights and he has opposed gun control legislation - again think about it - he has a record of support - he is the leader of the senate (a very powerful position) and unlike many in his party currently he is a supporter of gun rights - that is important - also as has been posted the NRA has an official policy the politicians can rely on - that is important - a politician can know that regardless of his party or his votes on non-gun issues - that so long as he supports or opposes legislation that the NRA scores and he gets an A grade - that he can depend on the NRA's endorsement - that is an important carrot and stick to get senators and representatives in states and districts where gun control is important to follow through on their commitment to the NRA and gun rights. If the NRA were to not follow through on their stated policies and went back on their promise - what message would that send to politicians. As I said the NRA's policy whether one likes it on not does maximize the NRA's ability to influence politicians and to effect legislation. In this case the NRA is doing their job and doing it right.

Edit to add: personally if I had a vote in Nevada I would vote against the senator despite the NRA endorsement - I understand why they have normally endorsed him due to their stated policies which I agree with - so I have no problem with the NRA endorsing him - just as I would have no problem not voting for him.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

grampster
  • Locked
NRA and Sen. Harry Reid
Replies
2
Views
358
Art Eatman
A
R
  • Locked
Now Harry Reid!
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
C
  • Locked
Lets Get Active To Replace Harry Reid
Replies
6
Views
1K
TexasRifleman
T
P
  • Locked
Dean supporters want NRA endorsement
2 3
Replies
56
Views
2K
Mark Tyson
M
R
  • Locked
SC-Andre Bauer Endorsed by NRA-PVF
Replies
5
Views
528
Rick Daniel
R
Back
Top