Patterico's Pontifications

7/3/2010

Will the NRA Endorse Harry Reid?

Filed under: Politics,Second Amendment — DRJ @ 12:49 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

Politico reports “the conservative Netroots are abuzz over the possibility” the NRA may endorse Harry Reid:

“The conservative Netroots are abuzz over the possibility that the NRA may endorse Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). This would be the second major slight by the NRA for political conservatives — the gun group also just negotiated a big exemption on a campaign finance bill loathed by the right.”

This strikes me as a PR and political miscalculation but bloated organizations, like arrogant people, can easily become drunk with a little success.

— DRJ

141 Responses to “Will the NRA Endorse Harry Reid?”

  1. Idiots

    Icy Texan (6fb9f7)

  2. Extra idiocy. Flushing the Republic one gun friendly marxist at a time.

    Vivian Louise (643333)

  3. they might as well just stick their guns up their ass and pull the trigger

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  4. The lesser of two evils is still EVIL!

    Icy Texan (6fb9f7)

  5. Endorsing Harry Reid would be the beginning of the end of the NRA. It would cost them half their support and all their integrity. This would be exactly the sort of betrayal that lives on in perpetuity, passed from father to son, like a blood oath.

    I’m reminded of the “read my lips” pledge George Bush the Elder made, then reneged. It cost him a second term and saddled the country with Slick Willy.

    An NRA endorsement of Dingy Harry would do for them what loose lips did for GHWB.

    ropelight (4b0868)

  6. The R does not stand for Republican.

    And next in line to succeed him is Charles Schumer.

    Or do you think that there will be a Republican majority and Republican majority leader?

    nk (db4a41)

  7. GOA rates politicians like school teachers rate school kids (appropriate).

    Reid gets an “F” every time.

    And, GOA, unlike the NRA, don’t do deals with gun grabbers.

    Dave Surls (2c656f)

  8. I notified the NRA I will cancel my membership and demand a refund if they endorce Reid. I further went on to tell them I will lobby against the NRA at every event they are represented at in this area.

    Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (c5e9ff)

  9. I had already decided to let my NRA membership expire after they had Newt as a main speaker recently.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  10. GOA, unlike the NRA, offers 30+ years of no compromise or results. They are beyond worthless.

    As NK aptly pointed out, the R doesn’t stand for Republican. They’re a single issue organization, and that issue is guns. Reid sucks overall, but he doesn’t suck on guns, which is a lot more than I can say for any Democrat likely to take his place if he loses his seat but his party retains control of the Senate.

    Xrlq (1cd5bb)

  11. Regardless of who endorses Reid, he will lose. If you are a shooter, hunter or gun owner join the NRA. It’s one of the most powerful lobby groups in this country.

    Who do you think sponsored Heller and MacDonald? They are going after the stupid California gun laws that ban “palm sized” weapons with a barrel length of less than 7″. My Model 1911 45 has a 5″ barrel! Big palms in California.

    Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. The NRA is an organization of conservative, pro-gun people who believe in self defense. We need to express our doubts about Reid, but stay in fight.

    arch (24f4f2)

  12. The wisest course of action for the NRA re Reid v. Angle, is to stay neutral.
    If they’re worried about Durbin or Schumer, they should make sure that the GOP picks-up ten seats – it’s no more complicated than that.
    I know they feel they have a debt to pay after Reid earmarked $60+MM for a new public shooting range in Clark Co – a range that Reid’s friends and associates in Clark Co govt were not particularly happy about, and tried to keep from happening, but that’s no reason to sell out.
    Reid voted for Brady, and he voted for the Clinton AW Ban, and it would be unconscionable to support him after that, especially over someone who desires to return the Federal Government to its limited, and enumerated, scope; and who whole-heartedly IIRC endorses the 2nd-A as an individual – NATION-WIDE – right that “shall not be infringed”.
    After Scozzafava in NY, the DISCLOSE ACT, and now this, the NRA seems bound and determined to increase the membership of GOA, and RKBA, plus others.

    AD - RtR/OS! (712fff)

  13. The NRA is a single issue organization, but I’m not a single issue person. I’m a shooter, but the NRA is now working against my other interests. They give credibility to Reid and Gingrich beyond gun issues, whether they intend to or not. Supporting Reid is a deal-breaker especially.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  14. #13 Stashiu3:

    They give credibility to Reid and Gingrich beyond gun issues, whether they intend to or not.

    And that is the problem in a nutshell.

    There isn’t anyone in a leadership position in the Democratic party who is willing to fall on their sword over the 2nd Amendment, and we shouldn’t be pretending there is. And Newt’s had me scratching my head for awhile.

    I won’t be resigning my life membership just yet, but I durn sure am gonna make sure the ILA knows how unhappy I am.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  15. Comment by nk — 7/3/2010 @ 1:56 pm

    Let’s see. Come January 2011, this nation could see in its Congress a Republican House, a Senate still in Democratic hands needing to replace a leader that got tossed by the voters, and a Barack Obama needing to get re-elected. Oh, and did I forget that the Dems have to defend 23 Senate seats in 2012?

    $50 says Charles Schumer won’t put himself into that swamp by seeking the Senate Majority Leader slot. Nor will Dick Durbin.

    Though you are correct that the R in NRA does not stand for Republican, inspite of the last 10 years of having to link themselves to the likes of Grover Norquist in order to seek refuge from the Left’s siege on the NRA.

    Brad S (c08277)

  16. Ditto what Stashiu3 #13 said.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  17. I was down on Newt for a number of reasons, but he’s gotten quite a bit better on the issues lately. I’m not about to write him a check, but I don’t change the channel when I see his face any more.

    ropelight (4b0868)

  18. The NRA, sadly, wandered into the far right wing area for a while, and (as far as I can tell) is still wandering around out there, although they’re now claiming to be seeking to protect the second rather than find perfection in government.

    htom (412a17)

  19. And what’s with all the heartburn over someone whose name never appears in the news: Grover Norquist?

    AD - RtR/OS! (712fff)

  20. “GOA, unlike the NRA, offers 30+ years of no compromise or results. They are beyond worthless.”

    I think the GOA is capable of rating people.

    It’s not that hard.

    Dave Surls (2c656f)

  21. The NRA is not responsible for Heller. The NRA tried to stop Alan Gura from bringing the case, and then once he brought it, they tried to take it over and pull the plug on it. I believe it was the 2nd Amendment Foundation that supported Mr Gura.

    The NRA is about money. Reid bought them with a rifle range earmark, cha-chingg. (Knowing him, one of his deadbeat kids was lobbyist on the earmark — a well known pathway into the public checkbook is to “hire” one of his spawn).

    Check Eric Erickson’s post, Reid has a horrible record on guns, and yet he gets the NRA tonguebath over one or two election-year strategic zigzags. The only reason he isn’t Schumer is that he has to pretend to be a Nevadan whereas Chuck can pretend to be a New Yorker (actually, they’re both Washingtonians and have been for decades, part of the same bipartisan aristocracy as the NRA lawyers and lobbyists, and they all get together someplace expensive and laugh about the chumps who give them money).

    Kevin R.C. O'Brien (82fba3)

  22. The NRA started to lose me with their support for the DISCLOSE act. Poison Pill, my a$$. Supporting Harry, fuggetaboutit.

    Red County Pete (b2c8ed)

  23. The NRA doesn’t support the DISCLOSE ACT, but since they’re not penalized by it, they’re not actively working against it, but they publicly say that they do not support it.

    AD - RtR/OS! (712fff)

  24. Tumato, Tomato. Their lack-of-opposition to DISCLOSE helped get it through the House. Sigh. I was planning to rejoin (left 20 years ago, long story) when the budget permits. I’ll wait and see.

    Red County Pete (b2c8ed)

  25. No, Red County Pete, you are quite confused. It is not the NRA’s job to advocate positions on campaign finance bills that don’t affect them.

    The NRA is not a “conservative” organization even if many of its members are conservatives. It is not supposed to be. I’m happy to have an NRA that gun sports people who happen to be liberal democrat can join with me.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  26. #25 SPQR:

    I’m happy to have an NRA that gun sports people who happen to be liberal democrat can join with me.

    Same here, although as Kevin R.C. O’Brien notes above, they don’t always stay on mission when it does come to politics.

    And I figger it this way: The more chances that I have to go shooting with a liberal, the sooner I’ll convince the of the error of their ways. 😉

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  27. What people don’t understand, EW1(SG), is that they can form the Conservative, fiscally responsible, Gun Club that only admits ideologically compatible people … but they won’t have any political clout.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  28. But how good a friend is Harry Reid to the NRA?

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  29. Well, to paraphrase Marx, any club that would have only me as a member sounds rather boring.

    And while there are some fine organizations that are strictly 2nd Amendment issue oriented, I don’t typically think of them as “gun clubs” either.

    And time to bring Oleg Volk back into this discussion also. Anti gun liberals put a lot of emphasis on the emotional side of their arguments, but there is a deeply emotional side to the pro gunner’s argument as well.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  30. #28 DRJ:

    But how good a friend is Harry Reid to the NRA?

    Harry is really only a friend to Harry.

    And his kinfolk.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  31. So what did having a republican senate leader do for gun rights the last time? What bills got passed by them?

    Compare the record of Reid vs Lott. What precisely did Trent Lott (or his GOP Senate) do in his four years as majority leader that directly benefited the rights of gun owners?

    Well, nothing got passed by the GOP Senate under Lott. As a matter of fact in the last 14 years of GOP control of the Senate they managed to pass precisely NOTHING. When they start acting like they care about the things the NRA cares about the NRA might start caring about them.

    Kevin (f183e8)

  32. Kevin, I don’t know who was Majority Leader (whether Lott or McConnell) in the Summer of ’05, but the GOP was in control 54-46, and they passed the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which was a priority of the NRA because of its protection of dealers and manufacturers, without whom, there would be no arms.

    AD - RtR/OS! (712fff)

  33. No, Red County Pete, you are quite confused. It is not the NRA’s job to advocate positions on campaign finance bills that don’t affect them.

    It was going to effect the NRA until they got exemption in return for non-opposition. That’s my problem with their position.

    IMHO, the Bill of Rights isn’t a good idea to separate. Keeping the 2nd amendment without the 5th would make for some interesting ways to make gun ownership a moot point. BATF abuses, anyone? Similarly, keeping the 2nd healthy at the expense of the 1st can make for problems.

    From what I saw, DISCLOSE was running into trouble in the House because the NRA’s potential opposition could help generate a fair amount of opposition. (I lived in California when Tom rady was running for governor and he supported the draconian gun control initiative. Prop 8, if I recall. NRA helped get a bunch of opposition to both the initiative and Tom Brady, and both died at the polls. I belonged to the NRA at the time and the “I’m the NRA and I vote” slogan had teeth.)

    However, when NRA took the DISCLOSE carveout and removed themselves from the playing field, it opened the door for other (liberal) groups to get similar carveouts and thus to passage. Yes, I blame Pelosi, but for a 2nd amendment group to allow an attack on the 1st strikes me as the wrong way to go. I think it’s a slippery slope.

    Hmm, I seem to be expressing opposition to single-issue politics. So be it. Our opposition has lots of ways to attack us, and Martin Niemoeller’s words still apply. I won’t participate in a circular firing squad, but I will be careful how my time and treasure are spent.

    Red County Pete (3faf9e)

  34. That was “Tom Bradley”!

    AD - RtR/OS! (ed07ac)

  35. DRJ, Stashiu3 and RCP: it sounds like your real beef with the NRA is that it is the NRA. Heaven forbid that a single-issue organization endorse or oppose candidates based on a single issue!

    Kevin O’B: nice to see you recycling the same lies you spewed in another forum without even addressing the fact that you were called on them. You know damned well why the NRA was initially cool to the Heller (then Parker) challenge but for the benefit of those readers who do not, the reason is because under the Supreme Court as it existed then, there was no reason to believe we would win. Did Alan Gura and the SAF have a crystal ball to tell them that by the time Parker/Heller reached the SC, Justice O’Connor would resign and be replaced by “Machine Gun Sammy” Alito? No, I didn’t think so. Gura played high stakes poker with the Constitution. He ultimately won, thank God, but faulting the NRA for initially discouraging that risky bet is beyond dishonest. Have a nice day.

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    Xrlq (1cd5bb)

  36. Xrlq,

    Again, you don’t get me. I have no problem with the NRA being a single-issue group, otherwise I wouldn’t be a current member. They influence more than a single issue though. I choose who and what I support, not you or anyone else. When the NRA does not effectively represent what I want, I no longer support them. If they endorse Reid, they lose me. Simple as that.

    I’m still waiting for my bumper sticker personally blaming me for President Obama being elected. I didn’t vote for McCain and you promised me a bumper sticker.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  37. I get you all right. Contrary to popular opinion, “get” is not a synonym for “agree with.” More specifically, I get that you are full of crap.

    As to Obama, I don’t remember promising you a bumper sticker, but given that you effectively cast half a vote for Obama, you certainly deserve at least half as much blame for his election as you would deserve if you had voted for him outright. I do see an odd irony, though; first you opposed McCain because he wasn’t true enough to the principles Republicans were supposed to stand for; now you’re bashing the NRA for doing precisely that.

    Xrlq (1cd5bb)

  38. No, “get” in that you don’t understand me, I already know and don’t care that you disagree. I’m fine with that, but apparently you aren’t. If you understood me you would know that it’s not irony, it’s consistency. My opposition to McCain was primarily that I didn’t trust him, so expecting him to be true to any principles was beyond me. I’m not a Republican because they don’t effectively represent me. That’s also consistent, not ironic.

    I guess from your perspective, I’m consistently full of crap. No worries. You’re hardly the only one who thinks so. That doesn’t mean you get to choose who and what I support. I didn’t “bash” the NRA. They chose to support Newt and are considering support for Reid. Those are deal-breakers for me. If President Obama has a drastic change and starts giving strong support to gun rights, the NRA should support him based on that, right? Are you still going to be happy if your dues go to President Obama’s re-election campaign? Or are you more than a single-issue person? It seems that unless people agree with you on your personal “single-issues”, they’re full of crap. I’d rather look at the whole person or organization.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  39. Supporting Newt????
    Because they asked/paid for him to give a speech?
    A speech by someone who has been as coy as a Prom Queen on whether he is suffering from Presidential Fever – or recognizes that no-one wants to march in his parade, but he might as well cash in now before the bloom is off the rose?

    Support Obama?
    Do you actually think he would have a “Road to Damascas” moment?
    Is this a grad exercise in “Strawman 20.1″?

    Can we get back to a realistic discussion of issues?
    Disclosure: FFL, Endowment Member-NRA.

    AD - RtR/OS! (ed07ac)

  40. AD,

    Yes. Because they asked/paid Newt to be a headliner at one of their major venues. And the questions about President Obama weren’t a strawman, they were extreme hypotheticals to illustrate that there comes a time when divergence becomes a deal-breaker. As a single-issue organization, if President Obama begins to support gun rights, they should support him. That’s the reasoning behind considering support for Reid. So how is it a strawman when it’s just an extension of what they’re already considering?

    I haven’t “bashed” the NRA, remember? Just withdrawn support and am going to let my membership expire. Is that really such a problem? Or am I expected to remain in lockstep because Xrlq doesn’t agree with my opinion? Not gonna happen.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  41. Stashiu3, I never said I got to decide who you can and cannot support. It’s a free country, so of course you have a right to be full of crap; it’s just too bad that you insist on exercising that right so often.

    In answer to your question about Obama, I’d say yes, if he had pulled a 180 on guns early enough in his term to become a credible, pro-gun politician in the foreseeable future, then I would expect (and want) the NRA to revise their ratings of him accordingly, even though my own personal opinion of the guy would remain in the toilet. Which, I might add, is basically where it is on Reid. I have no more use for Reid than you do, and certainly wouldn’t vote for him over Angle if I lived in Nevada. But if I sat on the Board I might well vote for the NRA to endorse him for the simple reason that they are a single-issue organization, while I am not. Your asking me if I am a “single-issue person” myself – as opposed to simply one who recognizes and respects the single-issue focus of the NRA – makes it pretty clear to me who really doesn’t get whom.

    Xrlq (1cd5bb)

  42. It’s a free country, so of course you have a right to be full of crap; it’s just too bad that you insist on exercising that right so often.
    Comment by Xrlq — 7/4/2010 @ 3:40 pm

    Yep. Too bad. Enjoy your holiday.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  43. While I may disagree with Stashiu3 on this issue, his point is a good one and worthy of serious consideration. This is why I am not confident of my position on this and am not comfortable with either side. For this reason, to say he is “full of crap” on this or any other issue is quite inappropriate and wrong.

    Even when I strongly disagree, and I do on some issues, I find his opinions and reasons thoughtful and worth considering.

    There are people on this site who are full of crap but Stashiu3 is just not one of them.

    Machinist (497786)

  44. Mac, it’s a personal choice and where folks draw the line is going to be different. Xrlq’s problem is that I don’t draw the line the same place he does. Also, he’s had a problem with me for a long time for some reason. I’ve got no problem with people who think the NRA is acting appropriately and continue to support them. Their line is drawn in a different place than mine, I’m okay with that.

    His continued ad-hom and claim that I “bashed” the NRA just tells me he is not interested in discussion and so I disengaged. I should support the NRA come-what-may or I’m full of crap. Fine. End of discussion. No worries my friend.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  45. XRLQ:

    DRJ, Stashiu3 and RCP: it sounds like your real beef with the NRA is that it is the NRA. Heaven forbid that a single-issue organization endorse or oppose candidates based on a single issue!

    I think it would be shortsighted of the NRA to endorse Reid because I don’t think he’s a friend of that organization. It’s a one-night-stand that I feel sure they would regret later, no matter how good it feels now.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  46. Stashiu3, I didn’t say you should support the NRA come what may. If you oppose gun rights, then of course you should oppose the NRA. If you support gun rights, but can credibly argue that the NRA does not, then of course you should bash the NRA for that. Or if for some reason you just think that single issue organizations are an inherently bad idea, then by all means, make that case. But if that’s your position, why on earth did you join the NRA to begin with? They have always been a single issue organization, and have never pretended to be anything else.

    DRJ, what is your basis for claiming a one-night stand? Erick Erickson’s dishonesty notwithstanding, Reid has a pretty strong record on guns, much better than anyone likely to replace him as Majority Leader if the Republicans fail to recapture the Senate, and probably not even that much worse than those likely to take his place if they succeed. There many, many reasons why conservatives, myself included, want Reid gone. The Second Amendment is not one of them. As to feeling good now, let’s just say that most NRA members lean conservative, and have no more love for Reid overall than you or I do. Supporting him, or even considering doing so, probably does not feel good to them at all. But if they want to retain any credibility at all as a pro-gun organization rather than a pro-conservative one in disguise, they’d be hard-pressed to justify endorsing Angle over Reid. Neutrality, maybe, but even that’s a tough call given how much more sway Reid would have than Angle.

    Xrlq (1cd5bb)

  47. Those are good points, XRLQ, but endorsing Reid chooses a fairweather supporter with political clout over Angle’s strong and unqualified support. (I think Reid’s a fairweather supporter because he doesn’t stand up for the NRA when it comes to Supreme Court or other court nominees.) Endorsing Reid might be a pragmatic decision but it’s a bad long-term message for a single issue organization to pick clout over belief, which is why if I were on the Board I would urge neutrality.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  48. I gave my reasoning above and none of your options included it. Nor did I “bash” the NRA at any time and in fact, denied doing so more than once. You’re being willfully dishonest.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  49. DRJ: I’m not sure what you mean by Reid not standing up for the NRA when it comes to the Supreme Court. He signed the Heller and McDonald briefs, didn’t he? The only thing he’s likely to do wrong at the Supreme Court level is confirm Elena Kagan – something Alan Gura has told me to my face he would do as a Senator, too. And a fairweather supporter of the Second Amendment would have voted for the “assault” weapons ban in ’94, not against it as Reid did (though this doesn’t stop a lying hack like Erickson from implying otherwise). Methinks you’re falling victim to the reverse-halo effect: Reid sucks on other stuff, so he must suck on this, too.

    Stashiu3: you provided no reasoning whatsoever. The third option – opposition to single-issue organizations in principle – is the only possible reason that comes close. Either that or it’s all about personalities; you don’t like Gingrich and Reid personally, so like a petulant child you’re talking your ball and going home.

    Lastly, you absolutely did bash the NRA. My refusal to take your repeated denials at face value reflects the fact that I do not believe you; it’s not evidence of dishonesty on my part.

    Xrlq (1cd5bb)

  50. Here is the rationale. They give credibility whether they intend to or not. I don’t agree with Gingrich or Reid on a host of issues, so supporting them works against my interests. They did not choose to remain neutral, so my choices are influenced by theirs.

    This is the second time I can recall you calling me a child. I’m not sure what your beef with me is, so all I can assume is that you use ad-hom instead of argument. Talk about going by personalities. Pot, meet kettle.

    Finally, point out where I “bashed” the NRA. Saying “absolutely did” doesn’t make it true. You’re lying.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  51. As I said above, Supreme Court … nominees, XRLQ.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  52. Here, here, and here are the only three comments I made before you accused me of “bashing” the NRA. You’re lying because none of them say anything more than the NRA was not representing my interests. Do you have the integrity to retract it?

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  53. How is #13 any different from opposition to single-issue organizations on principle?! That was actually the comment I had in mind when I threw out that possibility. The fact that you are not a single issue voter is immaterial. You either have a use for single issue organizations or you do not. If you do, the individual personalities like Gingrich or Reid are irrelevant. If you don’t, you never should have joined the NRA in the first place. It’s really that simple.

    Falsely claiming that the NRA does not represent your interest, when in fact it does an excellent job of representing all gun owners’ interests, is bashing in my book. Following up that reckless statement with a series of “I didn’t bash them, I didn’t, I didn’t, I didn’t, I didn’t” and “liar, liar pants on fire” protestations doesn’t make it any less so. Sorry to disappoint in refusing to tell you your shit is ice cream, but no, it’s not for a lack of integrity on my part, and fuck you for suggesting that it was.

    Xrlq (1cd5bb)

  54. I’m not suggesting it, I’m stating it. Taking out the context because you consider it irrelevant or immaterial is bad enough. Words have meaning and your “book” doesn’t count. Where did I specifically “bash” the NRA? Didn’t happen. It’s not a false claim to say they are not representing my interests when I specifically noted that my interests go beyond gun rights. You lied and don’t have the integrity to retract it.

    Again, you’ve had a problem with me long before this, even before the 2008 election discussions. I don’t know why and you’re apparently unwilling to spell it out. You’d rather keep throwing out ad-hom and try to claim I’m being immature to mask that you really don’t have a valid argument. You’ve shown your character (again).

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  55. No issue is in a vacuum. While a group may wish to focus on one issue only in order to attract the most people as possible, inevitably the one issue will interact with other issues in ways that will require a parting of ways. To be a one issue group does not mean you can ignore or send down the river any other group.

    Reid will be pro-gun and pro-second amendment only as long as what he does makes no difference. The millisecond he has opportunity to push the issue in an anti-NRA way he will. So, does the NRA think they can play him better than he can play them?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  56. Comment by MD in Philly — 7/4/2010 @ 7:11 pm

    You mean like when he supported the Clinton AW Ban, and the Brady Bill (before Insta-Check was added by the NRA)?

    Reid is a Summer Patriot, and Fairweather Friend.

    AD - RtR/OS! (ed07ac)

  57. No, Stashiu3, I don’t have anything against you in particular. I have plenty against horse shit, though, so as long as you continue to spew it with reckless abandon, expect to continue crossing swords. I know you’re not into quaint concepts like logic, but I’ll go against my better judgment and apply it here. When you claimed the NRA didn’t represent your interest, that could only have meant one of two things, to wit:

    1. The NRA does not represent your interests as a gun owner.
    2. The NRA does not represent your interests on issues unrelated to guns.

    Which was it? #1 or #2?

    Last and least, I’m curious as to why you think I had anything against you before your proudly announced your decision in 2008 to cast half a vote for Obama while proudly absolving yourself of responsibility for the predictable result (hint: he won). That was the first time I recall writing you off as an uncurable idiot. Was there an earlier incident I’ve completely forgotten?

    Xrlq (1cd5bb)

  58. AD:

    You mean like when he supported the Clinton AW Ban, and the Brady Bill (before Insta-Check was added by the NRA)?

    Reid supporting the Brady Bill was a misstep, and part of the reason his NRA rating used to be B rather than A. It was also a long time ago.

    Reid supposedly supporting the “assault” weapon ban is a bald-faced lie. Erickson deliberately misrepresented his record on this issue, by creating not one, but two entries on his vote in favor of the omnibus bill (which almost everyone supported) and no mention of the vote on the AW ban itself, which Reid voted against.

    Reid is a Summer Patriot, and Fairweather Friend.

    Wrong. Erick Erickson is a congenital liar, and you are his dupe.

    Xrlq (1cd5bb)

  59. MD:

    Reid will be pro-gun and pro-second amendment only as long as what he does makes no difference.

    It’s already made a difference. Courtesy of useful idiots like Stashiu3, we currently have the most anti-gun President in history. We also have a huge Democrat majority in both houses, yet for some odd reason, we’ve seen no major gun control initiatives over the past two years, and actually seen slight improvements in gun rights during this period. A big part of that odd reason is Harry Reid.

    The millisecond he has opportunity to push the issue in an anti-NRA way he will. So, does the NRA think they can play him better than he can play them?

    Reid is a prostitute, which is legal in his state, so I don’t put it past him to turn anti-gun if he saw it in his interest to be so. I don’t see what interest a Senator from gun-friendly Nevada has in being known as anti-gun. Which, I suspect, may be part of the reason he resisted immense pressure by his last President and voted no on the AW ban. He certainly didn’t cross Clinton for fun.

    Xrlq (1cd5bb)

  60. As I’m an “uncurable idiot”, there is really no purpose in discussing it, right? So you can stay curious I guess, I have no interest in looking it up again and linking it. Now make your unwarranted inferences, throw in some more ad-hom, pointedly avoid that there was no specific “bashing” of the NRA, and claim victory. I think you’ve thoroughly demonstrated your character. Good night.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  61. Who is Erick Erickson?

    AD - RtR/OS! (ed07ac)

  62. Well, if he’s a prostitute, he better relocate.
    Last time I checked, Searchlight was located in Clark Co., and prostitution is not legal in Clark.

    AD - RtR/OS! (ed07ac)

  63. Stashiu3: In other words, you know you can’t answer my question without admitting to lying, either on one level or the other. If #1 is your objection, then you unfairly smeared the NRA by falsely claiming they didn’t represent your interests as a gun owner when in fact they’ve done an exemplary job of that. And if #2 is your issue, then I was right that your real objection is to single-issue organizations per se, and you were a douche for denying as much. Either way, you are full of shit, the only question is which kind of shit you are full of. Which, given your steadfast refusal to provide a straight answer, will likely remain one of life’s little mysteries.

    Xrlq (1cd5bb)

  64. Shorter Xrlq: I’m a dishonest prig.

    John Hitchcock (9e8ad9)

  65. AD: Erickson is the liar at Redstate.org that spawned the lie about Reid having voted for rather than against the “assault” weapons ban. Chances are, whoever told you that lie heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who read it on Erickson’s screed.

    Fair point about prostitution in Searchlight, though; I was focusing on the state rather than the county.

    JH: That’s got to be the lamest shorter-my-enemy comment I’ve read in years.

    Xrlq (1cd5bb)

  66. It’s only lame because you’re a dishonest prig, Xrlq. And calling stash a liar and claiming he won’t answer you because he is is proof-positive that you’re a dishonest prig with zero evidenced ability to debate with integrity.

    John Hitchcock (9e8ad9)

  67. XRLQ…you’re wrong about Reid’s vote on AW.
    HR3355, as amended, was the vehicle for the AW ban, and Reid made the following votes:
    Final Senate Action before going to Congference, 11/19/93…Yea!
    Conference instructions on amendments by Biden, Gramm, Conrad & Mack, 5/19/94…Yea!
    Amendment by d’Amato, 5/19/94…Nay!
    Waive Budget Act provisions, 8/25/94…Yea!
    Agree to the Conference Report, 8/25/94…Yea!
    The bill was then sent to the President for his signature.

    Harry Reid voted Yea!
    It’s in the Congressional Record…
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HR03355:@@@X

    AD - RtR/OS! (ed07ac)

  68. I had already answered your question. The NRA is no longer representing my interests. Putting in “as a gun owner” is dishonest framing and omits the rest of the context. You posed a “When did you stop beating your wife?” question which, as you just proved, had no answer that you wouldn’t twist into a condemnation.

    Sorry for not falling into your rhetorical trap, but you continue to demonstrate your character.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  69. It’s already made a difference. Courtesy of useful idiots like Stashiu3, we currently have the most anti-gun President in history. We also have a huge Democrat majority in both houses, yet for some odd reason, we’ve seen no major gun control initiatives over the past two years, and actually seen slight improvements in gun rights during this period. A big part of that odd reason is Harry Reid

    I’m afraid I don’t buy it.

    You apparently have a level of vehemence about the NRA, Harry Reid, and Stashiu3 that I don’t get. I’ve read Stashiu3’s stuff all of the time, and even if you disagree with his view about the NRA you’re pushing it somewhere where it doen’t make sense.

    Good night from the East Coast.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  70. AD: That was a clever trick, there, identifying HR 3355, as amended, as the vehicle for the AW ban, while conveniently omitting the vote on the amendment itself that made it so.

    MD: Please clarify exactly what it is you are not buying, and why. Are you disputing that Obama is the most anti-gun President in history (or at least on the short list)? That people like Stashiu3 who claim not to support Obama, but also proudly refused to vote for the only person who had a snowball’s chance of defeating him, bear any responsibility for that result? That we have large Democrat majorities in both houses? What?

    Stashiu3: your refusal to clarify your position to a point that makes it verifiable/falsifiable is a refection on your character, not mine. Weasels hate to be pinned down; I get that. Since you absolutely, positively refuse to draw a distinction between an organization representing your interests as a gun owner (which is the only interest of yours the NRA ever promised to represent) and your generalized whining about their not representing your interests in other areas, I’ll put you down as objecting to single-issue organizations in principle, but being too pigheaded to admit that you made a mistake by joining one. But of course all your petulant, short-sided decisions are MY fault, not yours. Just as it’s surely my fault, not yours, that Obama won the ’08 election.

    Xrlq (1cd5bb)

  71. For those more interested in Reid’s record on guns than in pissing matches, I recommend this: http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2010/07/02/on-the-reid-endorsement/

    Xrlq (1cd5bb)

  72. If it were not for the NRA, I would not know how to shoot. They sponsored the gun ranges at my high school and at my college. The “rental” of the rifles was free, I paid a couple of dollars for the ammunition.

    Now, as for partisanship, I voted for Poshard (D) against Ryan (cRiminal).

    And, John Hitchcock … you shoulda stayed out of this.

    nk (db4a41)

  73. I don’t buy that anything conservative and good can be counted on from the seat occupied by Sen. Reid. If he is pro-gun and pro-second amendment at times it is for his own political benefit. Trusting him to be in your corner is like trusting Arlen Specter to have your back.

    Like I said before, if the leadership of the NRA thinks it can play Reid better than he plays them, let them try.

    I also repeat that even a single issue organization cannot function blind to other issues, because life is inter-related. I don’t think if Stashiu3 has supported the NRA and felt that it represented him in the past but now thinks it is taking a position that he disagrees with, that it means he objects to single issue groups in principle.

    For example, someone can be for conservation of national parks and wildlife, etc., but that doesn’t mean they necessarily need to be part of Greenpeace if they object to some of their tactics and position on specific (“big”) items.

    Each person has to satisfy their own conscience with their vote. Is it true, in one sense, that people who didn’t like Obama but did not vote for McCain “helped” Obama get elected? Yes, to a limited degree, but not as much as if they voted for Obama and not as much as if they worked for Obama to be elected. People who were eager to see McCain be the candidate (like D’s and I’s in N.H., and the NYT) also helped get Obama elected, and I would say moreso than those who took a position like Stashiu3. I actually was more like the people who said they voted for Palin. I didn’t and don’t in general trust McCain, but I knew what a disaster Obama would be. (I did vote for Perot in ’92. not realizing how bad Clinton would be.) But I respect Stashiu3’s position.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  74. Xrlq is another in a long line who believe that if you don’t do things their way, you’re stupid and/or evil. They’re not the boss of me and I am only responsible for myself. If, in their opinion, the NRA hasn’t stepped outside their single-issue, I am not permitted a contrary opinion. If, in their opinion, the only choice is between the two major parties, I am not permitted a contrary opinion. If I dare to express one contrary to theirs in any area, I am a useful idiot, an uncurable idiot, a weasel, full of shit, petulant, a child, and a liar. Heretics must be destroyed. Watch your back MD in Philly.

    I’m sure they’ll convince a lot of people to return to the NRA (or the GOP) using such a nuanced approach. Good luck with that.

    McCain/Scozzafava 2012.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  75. MD, I never said Reid was someone you can trust on principle. I did say he’s pretty good on the Second Amendment, which has as much to do with the politics of the state he represents as it does with anything else. From a 2Am standpoint, knocking him out is a dangerous move. While you may not trust to remain consistently pro-gun, you can certainly trust any Democrat likely to replace him (Schumer or Durbin) to be much, much worse on that issue (and, let’s face it, no better than Reid on the others). Given the circumstance, I frankly do not see how a single-issue organization could not endorse the guy and retain any credibility as the single-issue organization that they are. Oppose Reid, and they become the National Republican Association. Which, given Stashiu3’s disdain for the Republican Party, seems like an odd thing for him to want, anyway.

    The Greenpeace analogy doesn’t work because their tactics tend toward the extreme. I fully understand why some moderates want to keep their guns but don’t feel represented by the NRA because they support some gun control while the NRA supports almost none. That’s not my position, but it’s a rational one which I respect. I don’t think it is Stashiu3’s, though.

    I agree that people who threw away their vote bear less responsibility for Obama’s election than those who voted for him outright. That was precisely my point in #37 when I said he “effectively cast half a vote for Obama” by claiming to oppose him while simultaneously refusing to cast an effective vote against him. Like you, I made essentially the same error myself in 1992, albeit for LP candidate Andre Marrou rather than for Perot. Also like you, I learned from that mistake – in my case less than six months into the Clinton Administration. Many former Obamacons have learned from their mistake also. Stashiu3 has yet to learn from his. He may still.

    Xrlq (1cd5bb)

  76. Xrlq said no such thing.

    nk (db4a41)

  77. I should refresh before posting.

    nk (db4a41)

  78. The Greenpeace analogy had to do with your claim that Stashiu3 had to effectively be against one issue organizations, that you either were or were not in.

    The NRA does not use extreme tactics like Greenpeace, but to some endorsing Reid is pretty extreme.

    You have provided a well-explained justification of why it makes sense (to some) for the NRA to endorse Harry Reid. But I do not see it written in the sky that backing the NRa’s backing of Reid is the only reasonable approach.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  79. NK, when a dishonest prig like XRLQ acts like a dishonest prig, I can step in and say so. The fact I’m not the world-renowned attorney you are doesn’t prevent my stepping in and calling a dishonest prig a dishonest prig.

    Your opinions have lost a great deal of value over the past couple months in my eyes, anyway. And you should stfu before posting.

    John Hitchcock (9e8ad9)

  80. Xrlq was a poster, here, like DRJ and Karl are now.

    Your value of my opinions is your business. Take what you want.

    As for who is a dishonest prig, I think is you.

    nk (db4a41)

  81. JH, do you really think anyone cares what, or if, you think?

    Xrlq (1cd5bb)

  82. Comment by Xrlq — 7/5/2010 @ 4:50 am

    “As ammended” was the language in the Congressional Record that I was citing (take the link, and read all of the links/annotations there), and the final vote on the bill, on 8/25/94, was to impose an AW ban on the American public, a vote to send the bill to the President’s desk for his signature, and on that vote, Harry Reid voted: Aye!

    That is the official record of the Congress of the United States. It might not agree with your preconceived notions, but as Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously noted: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no one is entitled to their own facts.
    These are the facts!

    AD - RtR/OS! (6e3949)

  83. Ad, you are the making up your own facts. The fact is that the bill you cited was to do a gazillion things, of which the AW was only one. There was an up or down vote on the AW ban, and I linked to it. You conveniently ignored it, apparently because it didn’t agree with your preconceived notion.

    Xrlq (1cd5bb)

  84. If you’re gonna go with the “weapons I don’t like how they look” issue, the Bush with a Herbert did it the first year he was in office by executive order.

    nk (db4a41)

  85. If the “Dimbulb of Searchlight” was a serious pro-gun vote, he would have voted Nay on the conference report, for that was the bill that Bill signed; after all, the vote was 61-38 – it wasn’t that they needed his particular vote, they already had a majority.
    And, please show me which “facts” from the CR are wrong?

    AD - RtR/OS! (6e3949)

  86. I never said that I supported GHWB and his restrictions on the import of weapons deemed “not of sporting use”, which is a term of art that was put into the GCA-68 by the original Sen.Dodd, who lifted it from a Nazi-era German gun law that he knew about from his work at the Nuremburg Trials.

    AD - RtR/OS! (6e3949)

  87. …in fact, GHWB’s actions on guns, and taxes, drove me from the GOP into a brief flirtation with the Libertarians, where I found out what “Bat$hit Krazy” truly means.

    AD - RtR/OS! (6e3949)

  88. AD, none of the facts from CR itself are wrong. What is wrong is your misrepresentation of the VCCLEA as though it were a vote on the AW ban per se, when it was actually a huge omnibus bill that contained a gazillion other things. Everyone knew that some version of the crime bill was going to pass. The pivotal vote on the AW ban was the vote on the Feinstein Amendment, and was reported that way at the time.

    Xrlq (1cd5bb)

  89. “And you should stfu before posting.”

    – John Hitchcock

    Hilarious. Sorry. “You shut your mouth when you’re talking to me!” Hahahahaha…

    Hilarity aside, I’m with Stashiu3 and MD in Philly, and I think there’s a perfectly honest and logical line of reasoning behind the conclusions they’ve drawn: choosing which individuals or organizations represent you is a balancing act; if you decide that the actions of that individual or organization have become more damaging than beneficial to your interests – individually or in their sum – then you withdraw your support from that individual or organization. Stashiu3 is entitled to decide his own interests, to weigh them as he chooses, etc. He believes that an endorsement of Reid would be more damaging than beneficial to his interests in their sum, even if Xrlq is right in claiming that an endorsement of Reid would be beneficial to Stashiu3’s individual interests as a gun owner. Thus, he is withdrawing his support of the NRA. That makes perfect sense to me. I don’t understand why it doesn’t make sense to Xrlq.

    This section of Xrlq’s comment #53 is a false dichotomy: “You either have a use for single issue organizations or you do not. If you do, the individual personalities like Gingrich or Reid are irrelevant. If you don’t, you never should have joined the NRA in the first place. It’s really that simple.”

    It’s perfectly possible to recognize and utilize single-issue advocacy organizations while simultaneously recognizing that individual [political] personalities are absolutely not irrelevant, insofar as individual politicians act on a number of issues, which may or may not be detrimental to a given individual’s interest in their sum. Simply put: the fact that Stash allows the sum of his interests in a wide array of other issues to outweigh his interests as a gun-owner does not mean that he has no interests as a gun-owner, or that he has no use for single-issue advocacy organizations.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  90. Comment by Xrlq — 7/5/2010 @ 5:22 pm

    Again, Reid got a pass from the leadership, in that, on the only recorded vote on the Feinstein Amendment (Amendment 1152 to S-1607, on 11/17 (Vote # 375), he voted Nay when the recorded vote was 56-43 – They didn’t need his vote and he was allowed to protect his backside, which is a common tactic when the passage of a measure is not in doubt, but certain members need to buck-up their back-home support.
    It is not a measurable measure of the man, at least for me, for inclusion in the positive column.
    And besides that, even as an NRA member, my political support is gauged on many factors, and Mr. Reid is found out-of-gauge!

    AD - RtR/OS! (6e3949)

  91. And we’re back to the “R” does not stand for Republican.

    nk (db4a41)

  92. You like Johnnie Cash, AD? Maybe you shouldten (sic). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZONhM75uyI&feature=related

    nk (db4a41)

  93. And I have never said it does, and have been a pretty even handed supporter and critic of the NRA here on these pages.

    AD - RtR/OS! (6e3949)

  94. Of interest….
    All of the Dems who voted Nay on the Feinstein Amendment (Bryan-NV, Reid-NV, Breaux-LA, Johnston-LA, Heflin-AL, Bingaman-NM, Sasser-TN) with the exception of Shelby-AL, changed their vote to Aye for passage of the Omnibus Bill.
    I suppose that showed a real courage of conviction; or, it showed that the pork involved was more important than the Rights of gunowners (citizens) of the United States of America.

    AD - RtR/OS! (6e3949)

  95. Not sure I understand your point, Leviticus. If you are saying that single-issue organizations have their place, but individuals should vote against their recommendations based on the bigger picture, then we’re in heated agreement. But bashing a single issue organization for acting like a single issue organization, while simultaneously refusing to admit that you have a problem with single issue organizations, simply makes no sense.

    Individual personalities can of course be relevant in some extreme cases. We’d be having a very different discussion if the NRA had endorsed David Duke or invited Jeremiah Wright to speak, for example. But neither Stashiu3 nor anyone else has said anything about Reid or Gingrich that would justify comparing either of them to such odious individuals. Both are mainstream politicians who Stashiu3, for reasons unrelated to the Second Amendment, just happens to hate. Hating is his prerogative, of course, but hating on the NRA for not sharing his hate is just silly. As is whining about the fact that it’s my fault he won’t vote Republican in future elections because his widdle feewings got hurt. Anyone inclined to vote on his feelings should do the country a favor and abstain from voting at all.

    Simply put: the fact that Stash allows the sum of his interests in a wide array of other issues to outweigh his interests as a gun-owner does not mean that he has no interests as a gun-owner, or that he has no use for single-issue advocacy organizations.

    Simply put, you’ve just contradicted yourself. Unless you are a single-issue voter yourself, single-issue organizations will inevitably endorse individuals from time to time who offend you for reasons unrelated to that issue. That’s the nature of the beast. You’re either OK with that or you’re not. If you are, you recognize that the organization won’t always support the candidate you think is best for the country overall – indeed it would be a bizarre coincidence if it did. If you are not OK with this occasionally uncomfortable result, don’t join a single-issue organization.

    Xrlq (1cd5bb)

  96. AD, re-read the numbers. The real vote on the AW bill was not close in the Senate, but it was closer than the vote on the omnibus bill, and if memory serves it was painfully close in the House, which is where most of Clinton’s heavy lifting had to be done. My greater point is that entire political battle over “assault” weapons – or 99% of it, anyway – was fought over the vote to add the Feinstein Amendment to the crime bill, not on the final vote on the crime bill itself. Given that both houses had voted for the AW ban long before then, I’m not even sure how failure of the VCCLEA was supposed to have prevented an AW ban, anyway; both houses had already gone on record in support the ban on its own merits.

    Xrlq (1cd5bb)

  97. Don’t have much use for blackpowder as it keeps you from seeing what you’ve just shot at, and – if shooting from cover – gives your position away.

    Much prefer gunning people down metaphorically, but, if the occasion and need arises, feel confident that I can acquit myself to the situation.

    AD - RtR/OS! (6e3949)

  98. “But bashing a single issue organization for acting like a single issue organization, while simultaneously refusing to admit that you have a problem with single issue organizations, simply makes no sense.”

    – Xrlq

    Which is why Stashiu3 keeps arguing that he’s not bashing the NRA for acting like a single issue organization – he’s saying that he believes their actions as a single-issue organization will, on balance, be more harmful than beneficial to his interests as a multi-issue voter, and that it’s a deal-breaker for him.

    Why would he ever join such an organization in the first place, then? Because it’s perfectly possible that the NRA could not take a course of action which Stash thought detrimental to the sum total of his interests – they could support a staunch pro-gun conservative in races against Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin (for instance, hypothetically) and let Harry Reid and the deal-breakingly offensive sum-total of his political views swing. They could endorse a staunch pro-gun conservative in the race against Reid (if one were available). The fact that the NRA is instead choosing to tell what I’d imagine is a significant percentage of its members to swallow their reasonable reservations about a politician like Reid and simply fall into line seems more than mildly offensive, and I don’t blame Stashiu3 for thinking it the last straw.

    “Simply put, you’ve just contradicted yourself. Unless you are a single-issue voter yourself, single-issue organizations will inevitably endorse individuals from time to time who offend you for reasons unrelated to that issue. That’s the nature of the beast. You’re either OK with that or you’re not. If you are, you recognize that the organization won’t always support the candidate you think is best for the country overall – indeed it would be a bizarre coincidence if it did. If you are not OK with this occasionally uncomfortable result, don’t join a single-issue organization.”

    – Xrlq

    I don’t think I have. It’s a question of degree. Certainly, if Stash expected the NRA to only endorse candidates whose views were in complete and total alignment with his own views as a multi-issue voter (and erstwhile NRA member), that would be unreasonable. But it’s not unreasonable for Stash to object to the NRA’s endorsement of Reid, whose views overlap with Stash perhaps only on the issue of gun-rights. Is there not a single more palatable choice the NRA could make? Then why did they/would they make this one?

    An organization I support may endorse a candidate whose views differ from my views in a few areas, and that’s all well and good; but it’s quite different for said organization to expect me to march in lockstep when they endorse a candidate whose views are (almost) diametrically opposed to my own. It’s not fair to ask a member of a single-issue organization to think only in terms of a single-issue; people join such organizations for varying reasons, with varying degrees of commitment/zeal, and with varying levels of tolerance for unsavory compromise. That’s life, and that’s their fair prerogative; more specifically, that’s Stashiu’s fair prerogative.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  99. Lost count of the strawmen and mischaracterizations there. Let’s cover just a few that jump out.

    Who said anything about hate, of either Reid, Gingrich, or the NRA? I don’t hate any of them and never said I did.

    How does withdrawing support and letting a membership expire constitute bashing? I said they no longer represent my interests. I even linked to the only three comments I made before your accusation and you had to make some tortured and flawed argument as to why it was bashing “in your book”.

    Why would I admit to a problem with single-issue organizations when I don’t have a problem with them? Nothing I’ve said warrants that as a definitive conclusion. It’s an assumption on your part based on faulty reasoning.

    Why bring David Duke or Jeremiah Wright into it, then act like I made a comparison when I clearly didn’t? That’s a form of Godwin.

    When did I say I wouldn’t vote for a Republican? I have consistently said that I would vote for the best person who met a minimum standard and that would likely be a Republican most often. I just won’t vote for someone because they’re a Republican. Big difference.

    You’re delusional and a liar. Leviticus and others had no trouble understanding my position and even explained it to you in detail. You continue to distort it based on your own hate. You are clearly not commenting in good faith and have behaved disgracefully. Your frequent attempts to belittle fall short because they are lies. There is no doubt in my mind that it doesn’t matter what I say, you’ll twist it into something unrecognizable just to smear me. Fine. It says more about you than it does me.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  100. As is whining about the fact that it’s my fault he won’t vote Republican in future elections because his widdle feewings got hurt.

    Wow, just noticed that. Do you honestly believe that you could influence how I vote for the rest of my life? Even if I did say something like that, and I don’t recall it but it sounds like the kind of sarcasm I use, why would you believe that from then and not believe anything I say now? No wonder you’re so upset. You truly are delusional. Get some help.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  101. An organization I support may endorse a candidate whose views differ from my views in a few areas, and that’s all well and good; but it’s quite different for said organization to expect me to march in lockstep when they endorse a candidate whose views are (almost) diametrically opposed to my own. It’s not fair to ask a member of a single-issue organization to think only in terms of a single-issue; people join such organizations for varying reasons, with varying degrees of commitment/zeal, and with varying levels of tolerance for unsavory compromise. That’s life, and that’s their fair prerogative; more specifically, that’s Stashiu’s fair prerogative.

    Indeed it is. But it’s also an argument against single-issue organizations. So why can’t he just admit that he doesn’t like the concept of single-issue organizations? That’s a defensible position. Trying to have it both ways is not.

    Xrlq (1cd5bb)

  102. I don’t think that’s an argument against single-issue organizations.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  103. What is the most important place for out bill of rights to be upheld?

    The Supreme Court. By endorsing Reid, the NRA is giving him cover as a moderate even though he has been a bitter extreme leftist with regard to our sane Court Justices, and very supportive of those who oppose our civil rights.

    Even as a single issue org, the NRA is a failure when it endorses and helps those who have a negative influence on the 2nd Amendment in our Supreme Court. The NRA recently noted that it saw things this way with Kagan, but for powerful Senators, the NRA is playing a game and making a compromise that is counterproductive.

    And I could go on all day about how they made a serious miscalculation with Heller, who came to the NRA for help and was turned away on the logic that if we fight for our rights, it’s too risky and we might lose more rights. The Cato Institute saw the light, that the Court in 2007-2008 was soon going to be made more liberal because the democrats were going to be on the political upswing and several Justices were due to retire. That’s another generation of three hard leftists. Cato weighed the risks and decided then was the time to fight for our right to bear arms. We had gone too long with millions of Americans denied their right, and shrinking away from that fight was immoral and poor tactics.

    The NRA eventually filed an Amicus in support of the 2nd Amendment, but it was banal and unhelpful. In comparison to the effects of endorsing people like Reid, who do have a major impact on the makeup of the Court, the NRA’s actual support of the our rights pales.

    That’s why I no longer support the NRA with my money. I hope people support those institutions that actually get us huge results. Hard to find a better example than Cato on the 2nd Amendment, in my opinion.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  104. Where the hell did this thread go?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  105. Leviticus, my “stfu” comment was directly tied to nk’s comment that said anyone who wasn’t an attorney was persona non grata when debating him, because he was oh so much better than anyone who wasn’t a juris doctor. Just to clear that up.

    John Hitchcock (9e8ad9)

  106. #104 SPQR:

    Where the hell did this thread go?

    I think you answered your own question, but you forgot to add the handbasket.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  107. And nk should really get back to his juris doctor continuing education junk, because it didn’t take the first time around.

    John Hitchcock (9e8ad9)

  108. Leviticus,

    I appreciate your efforts to try and explain as you certainly understand what I said, but he’s not interested in understanding.

    I’m sure there are plenty of left-wing single-issue organizations that I would never join, yet I support their right to lobby their issue. Just because I disagree with an organization at any point, maybe even after joining if I decide they no longer represent me as a whole person, doesn’t mean I’m arguing they shouldn’t exist. He continues to miss (or more likely, refuses to accept) the point and keeps repeating his flawed conclusion.

    Okay, this thread has run it’s course for me since I’m not interested in listening to him distort and lie further. Lack of response does not indicate unwillingness or inability to respond, just that it’s a waste of time. If I do comment further, all it means is that I chose to do so, not that I felt any special need to defend against any particular future distortion or lie from him. It’s a shame to have to put in that disclaimer, but his mad mind-reading skillz could lead him anywhere from here.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  109. The Disclose act is an atrocity, a violation of at least two parts of the first amendment, speech and association, to trust that 2nd Amendment won’t be affected, is to trust in Stupak’s famed executive order. It is a betrayal of the principles they say they espouse

    ian cormac (93d17d)

  110. Ian, you have a right to privacy if you want to associate with baby killers and terrorists. But if you want to associate with Constitutionalists, no such right to privacy exists.

    John Hitchcock (9e8ad9)

  111. That’s about the size of it, JH

    ian cormac (93d17d)

  112. I even wrote an article supporting NRA’s switch from being anti-Disclose Act to being neutral (where they got a carve-out) due to their single-issue stand. And I can still see that as being valid.

    But supporting Reid over a real gun supporter? And supporting Strickland over Kasich? There’s something rotten over at NRA HQ.

    John Hitchcock (9e8ad9)

  113. Ask Sam Rothstein (Frank Rosenthal) how suppoting Harrison (Reid) worked out, well he passed on, but you get the point

    ian cormac (93d17d)

  114. Comment by Xrlq — 7/5/2010 @ 6:40 pm

    The Feinsten Amendment was the AW ban, as it is word for word, and gun for gun, taken from the earlier Roberti-Roos bill in CA; and that vote was as I noted earlier, 56-43, and was the only vote on Feinstein in the Senate, before sending the bill to conference after it had been married to HR-3355.

    AD - RtR/OS! (6e3949)

  115. Dustin: I disagree that the Supreme Court is the most important place for our rights to be upheld. All government officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and courts are unlikely ever to enforce the Second Amendment in particular to the extent gun rights advocates would prefer. Hell, we only got a bare majority of Justices to rule that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms at all! And barring a key personnel change neither the NRA nor Alan Gura could have predicted at the time the original Parker case (later to become Heller was filed), it’s likely we’d have seen a 5-4 decision the other way. This at a time when the other branches of government have been increasingly pro-gun in all but a few very large cities.

    JH: Regarding Reid vs. Angle (bear in mind they still haven’t endorsed either, though this thread often reads as though they have) it’s not just a question of who is more pro-gun, it’s also a question of who gets more bang for the buck. If Angle wins, she will not replace him as Senate Majority Leader, and it would be foolhardy to overlook the question of who would. As to Strickland vs. Kasich, what else were they supposed to do? I think you’d be hard pressed to identify a single gun rights organization that grades Kasich better than Strickland on that issue. But never mind me, I’m just a dishonest prig. Go on and bash the NRA for endorsing a Democrat who voted consistently in favor of guns over a Republican who voted for the AW ban (the actual ban itself, that is, not just the omnibus crime bill that contained it).

    Xrlq (1cd5bb)

  116. Kill (delete) that last comment of mine that got caught in the spam filter, please, Stashiu.

    I will send you some frozen deep dish pizzas in return. 😉

    nk (db4a41)

  117. To those who want to see Harry’s voting recording on guns, go to the link below:

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/07/01/nra-now-leans-toward-endorsing-harry-reid/

    Layla (d663ba)

  118. Harry Reid is using that $61 MILLION Nevada earmark to the NRA to win their endorsement over that of Sharon Angle who is a strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights. (She is being supported by the Tea Parties.) Harry is desparate and apparently are Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox of the NRA.

    Layla (d663ba)

  119. “I disagree that the Supreme Court is the most important place for our rights to be upheld. All government officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution”

    Is there some way your argument works that I’m not seeing. As best as I can tell, I said the Court was the most important place, which carries the meaning that there are other aspects of government that are also important.

    Of course the Court is the most important place to recognize an individual and not incoorporated right to bear arms. There’s no way around this. No other single decision has made anywhere near such an improvement in our civil rights.

    And not taking Heller to Court would have meant what?

    It would have meant millions of people who have their rights respected under the law today, not having their rights respected. That’s an importance that can’t be overstated. Cato and their friends, not the NRA, did more for your second amendment rights than the NRA and Reid ever have or ever will. The NRA is comparatively a failure.

    Going the NRA’s path would have meant leaving this battle behind for a long time, as Democrats were obviously coming into power at the time. It would have meant never taking ANY case to the Court, because if the Heller case wasn’t good enough, I doubt any would be.

    But that’s beside the point. The real point is that you’re arguing our Court is not the most important battleground for civil rights. Since the Constitutional Convention, it most certainly has been. And Reid has certainly had an impact on the Court. As a powerful Senator, he and those like him pull weight with the White House before a nomination and during the hearings.

    Reid has been 100% balls to the wall insane in opposition to the very people who ruled in favor of an individual and incorporated right to bear arms. To use his words, they are an ’embarrassment’. And he has been outspoken in support of those who voted against.

    Endorsing Reid again because of some pork gun range, or some BS votes of far less consequence, in spite of his real and caustic work, is not compatible with Second Amendment advocacy.

    The NRA needs some great examples of people taking our rights away. I’ve heard complaints from Californians who can’t get the NRA to help them because the NRA admits it uses Cali as an example for the flyover country. They bet big and lost big when we won Heller. Screw them.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  120. Comment by Layla — 7/6/2010 @ 10:04 am

    And the DC lobbyist hired by the LV groups attempting to get Fed Dollar$ for this project:

    A Reid family member!

    AD - RtR/OS! (1087df)

  121. The fact they the NRA is even considering supporting Harry Reid only proves that they are all for sale to the highest bidder. Once you sell yourself, you lose.

    Craig (d1bb19)

  122. Say it isn’t so!!! Endorsing Harry Reid(Prince Harry). I will withdraw my membership and donations. What are you thinking????????

    Sigurd P Andersen( proud American that loves his country)

    Sigurd P Andersen (8cd388)

  123. I have forwarded a letter from an NRA Board Member that was sent to all NRA Members Councils to both PP and DRJ that addresses this subject.
    It also addresses the NRA’s position on DISCLOSE, and on Kagan.

    AD - RtR/OS! (568b48)

  124. Dustin:

    Of course the Court is the most important place to recognize an individual and not incoorporated right to bear arms. There’s no way around this.

    Sorry, but “of course” is not an argument, nor is “there’s no way around this.” Neither adds an iota of credibility to your argument. The fact is that the NRA has succeeded in improving gun rights significantly over the past decade and a half without the benefit of the courts. Of course the recent decisions will help, too, but it’s unclear how much (unless, of course, you happen to live in Washington, DC, Chicago, Oak Park, or any of the Chicago suburbs that repealed their ordinances in anticipation of McDonald).

    No other single decision has made anywhere near such an improvement in our civil rights.

    Sez you. It’s way too early to know how much of a difference Heller and McDonald will make, if any, outside the cities that were the subject of these suits. The only obvious benefit in most parts is the propaganda value of the other side no longer being able to credibly argue that the Second Amendment protects no individual right at all. Which, admittedly, is something, but it’s unclear why you think it’s a bigger something than the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act, national park carry, they expiration of the AW ban (which courts might not have ultimately overturned, anyway, but probably would not have), permit-free carry in AZ, or anything else that has gone on among the “political” branches of government which have given us a lot more gun rights than any court is likely ever to do. It sounds like you’re asking us to believe that the Supreme Court is the most important vehicle in protecting our gun rights not because you have a shred of evidence to show that it is, but merely because you said so.

    And not taking Heller to Court would have meant what?

    For Dick Heller, and probably for Otis McDonald, plenty. For the rest of us, probably not a whole lot. Maybe it would have meant the Heller and McDonald cases would have happened exactly as they did, only they would have been brought two years later when everyone knew we had the 5 votes we needed to win. Do you have any clue how bad it would have been for the 2Am if we had lost? Or any reason to believe that Sandra Day O’Connor’s vote in place of Samuel Alito’s would have accomplished just that? Do even care?

    Xrlq (1cd5bb)

  125. Well Xrlq, you asked: “It sounds like you’re asking us to believe that the Supreme Court is the most important vehicle in protecting our gun rights not because you have a shred of evidence to show that it is, but merely because you said so.”

    Well how about because the NRA has said so repeatedly, one of the latest was in their Kagan link (http://www.nraila.org/kagan/): It said:”There may be no vote a United States Senator casts that is more important than a vote to confirm a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

    Don’t you trust the NRA at its word? If you don’t, I don’t blame you. The NRA hasn’t been honest lately.

    Lets examine Reids “Most Important votes” according to the NRA:
    – John Roberts (pro 2nd)- Reid Vote – No
    – Samuel Alito (pro 2nd)- – Reid Vote – No
    – Ruth Ginsburg(anti-2nd)- – Reid vote -Yes
    – Sonia Sotomayor(anti-2nd)- -Reid vote -Yes
    AND he favors Kagen who has grouped the NRA to the KKK!!!

    Reid has a 0% record for pro 2nd amendment Supreme court nominee record. And the NRA doesn’t mention what they have repeadly, referred to as “most/more important votes a senator can cast.

    Is that enough evidence for you Xrlq? Or don’t you trust the NRA on whats important for keeping the 2nd amendment. I don’t trust the NRA anymore, just pointing out their blatant hypocracy as of late that shows you the poster you mocked has pleanty of evidence if you will just read the ever conflicting NRAILA rants.

    The NRA did state publically they would rate any senator who voted for Sotomayor lower, google it, and select the media source you trust the most!! (more proof) Are the NRA threats to be taken seriously? If the NRA goes back on that threat, there is no reason for ANY politician to ever have to worry about NRA endorsements/warnings EVER again.

    I saw the NRAs dishonesty in their NRAILA link praising Reids new found pro 2nd amendment votes COMPLETELY IGNORING what they publicaly state are the most important votes a senator can place. It was disgusting they would do that to their members.

    Did the NRA leaders get caught having wild sex partys in Vegas or something? What are they getting out of this? Money? The $61Mil Shooting range funding might get cut, since its supposed to be completed 2015? Don’t sell out our rights and trust we had placed in the NRA as Life Members such as myself and my Daughter.

    DaddyDave (e13b99)

  126. DopeyDave, I think it’s a bit of hyperbole to say that the vote to confirm a Supreme Court Justice who may not strike down unconstitutional legislation is more important than the vote for or against the legislation itself, but that’s neither here nor there. The NRA has yet to endorse anyone in this race, and has made clear that a vote to confirm Kagan will count against each candidate’s score. That doesn’t mean they won’t endorse Reid, of course, but it does mean that if they do, it will be in spite of his expected vote to confirm, and certainly not because of it. For all you or I know, they may end up NOT endorsing Reid specifically because he voted to confirm.

    In any event, if not downgrading a candidate’s rating enough for confirming Kagan makes someone untrustworthy in your book, then I gues you shouldn’t trust Alan Gura, either, as he’s made it clear in both public and private fora that if he were a Senator, he’d probably vote to confirm Kagan himself. So which is it? Is the lawyer who got us both Supreme Court victories just another untrustworthy sell-out, or are you an unreasonable jerk for holding the NRA to a standard no one else could meet? No need to answer: by bashing the NRA while pretending to favor gun rights yourself, you’ve already shown your ass.

    Last and least, there is no such word as “hypocracy.” If there were, it would mean government by the small, of the small and/or for the small. IOW, a world where the likes of you and Stashiu3 would rule the roost. Freudian slip, perhaps?

    Xrlq (1cd5bb)

  127. Xrlq, Thank you for your last post. It shows everyone your true character.

    DaddyDave (e13b99)

  128. I would have to agree with #127.

    Comment #125 was a reasoned and rational point of view with no insults or abusive language. One may argue with the points made but any arguments in the response are lost, buried under name calling and personal insults. I usually see this on leftist sites when someone tries to correct their BS. This usually indicates an inability to respond effectively to someones arguments and certainly reflects poorly on the responder.

    Machinist (497786)

  129. Lets see Xrlq: I presented you with:
    – List facts of Reids anti-2nd amendment votes.
    – NRAs stated position on importance of Supreme court nominees votes.
    – Proof they said they would lower senators ratings if they vote for Sotomayor.
    – And proof of what the NRA says about Kagan and senators who support/vote for her.

    You present a response:
    – Denigrating me personally because I misspelled a word “hypocracy” despite the fact you laughably misspelled “gues” and “fora” in your response to me.
    – Use profanity to insult those who disagree with your “opinions”
    – You don’t present ways to verified your statements, they are just (as you put it to others) your “widdle feewings.”

    Keep jabbering, it funny to watch people like you show their true selves.

    I am a true supported of the 2nd amendment rights, I feel that the NRAs stated position of the Supreme court nominee votes match mine. If the NRA goes against what they profess, then they can’t be trusted.

    I am a NRA Life Member so I have some “Skin in the game” with the NRA and their positions. Are you?

    DaddyDave (e13b99)

  130. We can have no fear of Durbin if he becomes majority leader if those three misguided souls,Graham and those two idiot senators from main are now allowed to be swayed by the Senate Liberal Progressives.

    the reedsville radical (70b245)

  131. My and my Daughters Membership cards with last name and membership numbers blocked out.

    http://newdaddydave.angelfire.com/nra

    If you want to bash me here, feel free, but put up proof of your NRA membership, or your opinions just don’t matter to me, and shouldn’t matter to the NRA.

    DaddyDave (e13b99)

  132. What are we doing here, comparing penis sizes?
    This is supposedly a country where political speech, and opinion, is free and valued.
    If you can’t debate each other on the merits, then perhaps you should just agree to disagree, and retire from the field.
    I know that I would never vote for Harry Reid, but I wouldn’t bolt from the NRA over something as inconsequential as an endorsement; but would raise Holy Hell within the organization to remind them that it should be the last time that they should do something so foolish as to trade a shooting range for an endorsement for a politician whose personal and governmental philosophy is anti-thetical to everything a Patriot would believe.
    And Yes, we are the National Rifle Association, and our concern is over the protection of our 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms; but, we need to also remember why we were formed:
    To encourage the knowledge and skills neccessary for riflemen to defend their country, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; spurred by the abject lack of marksmanship evident in the recruits (particularly from urban areas) inducted into the Grand Army of the Republic.

    Every Man a Rifleman!

    AD - RtR/OS! (392f66)

  133. Every Man a Rifleman!

    and my wife too!

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  134. Like Mr. Jefferson, I use the generic “man”.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a25bb4)

  135. Triggers know no gender.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a25bb4)

  136. AD – RtR/OS,

    FYI, I did first try to “raise Holy Hell within the organization”. I called and e-mailed almost daily. Then I became angry when they responded with the misleading e-mails only praising small legal contributions to the 2nd amendment Reid has made while completely ignoring what they have consistently stated:”There may be no vote a United States Senator casts that is more important than a vote to confirm a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

    Anyone who has been awake the past 2 decades knows: out of the 4 serving Supreme CourtJustice nominations Reid voted on, Reid voted 100% of the time AGAINST the NRAs interests. And he is currently supporting Kagan, who the NRAILA site is so adamantly against. Read the PDF file the NRAILA sent the senate, any senator who supports her should have their support should be lowered for any senator who supports Kagan.

    Only after the NRAs canned e-mails insulting the members intelligence about candidate Reids horrible record on 2nd amendment rights did I try and prevent money I gave them from supporting their misleading efforts.

    As far as the original intent of the NRA you mentioned, that is a noble effort I support both with money and time. After all, I have a daughter who can not only shoot better than most adults, but can also field-strip a Ruger Mk ii (with minimal help on the parts requiring more force than her 9 year old fingers have), and field-strip a Ruger Charger.

    But it is intolerable to think the ILA branch uses the large sums of money I entrusted them with, to praise(even if not officially endorse) candidates who have such a horrible record on 2nd amendment rights by the NRAILA websites own advertised standards.

    I don’t favor restricting peoples opinions, but if they are arguing internal policies for privately funded organization, I think they need to have a vested interest in that organization before their opinions should have any sway. I was simply showing I do have a vested interest in the NRAs internal policies.

    Do the Democrats allow the Republicans to shape their policies, or do the Republicans allow the democrats to shape their policies? I’m personally registered “unaffiliated” and vote based on my life values for candidates on an INDIVIDUAL basis. I have NEVER voted straight ticket. And that’s what I thought the NRA did as well, based on their stated values. ”There may be no vote a United States Senator casts that is more important than a vote to confirm a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

    But I guess I was wrong about the NRAILA.

    DaddyDave (e13b99)

  137. Well, Dave, you’ve done all that you can do.
    I might suggest not voting for any BoD candidate nominated by the insiders, find an outsider that mirrors your views and interests, and volubly advance his/her candidacy – Directors can be nominated by petition of the membership. If enough voices can be brought to bear on “the powers that be” from within the organization, we can make a difference.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a25bb4)

  138. The NRA IS NOT a one issue organization, despite Chris Cox’s assertion. They have been very active in 1st amendment issues and also border control issues. Chris Cox’s statement is the statement of a politician who got caught making a poor decision and thinks (like many politicians) that his constituency is too stupid or naive to recognize that fact. I havent resigned from the NRA yet, but Im watching closely.

    Ivar (113f58)

  139. Gun Owners of America give Harry Reid an F rating.
    Harry Reid’s anti-gun voting record during the last 20 years:

    June 28, 1991. Vote No. 115. Voted for a 5 day waiting period for handgun purchases.

    October 21, 1993. Vote 325. Voted to eliminate the Army Civilian Marksmanship Program. Only the most fringe anti-gun Senators voted for the amendment.

    November 19, 1993. Vote 385. Allow states to impose waiting periods over and above the 5 days waiting period required under the Brady Bill.

    November 19, 1993. Vote 386. Voted to eliminate the 5-year sunset in the Brady Bill.

    November 19, 1993. Vote 387. Voted to close off debate on the Brady Bill.

    November 19, 1993. Vote 390. Voted to close off debate on the Brady Bill.

    November 20, 1993. Vote 394. Voted for the Brady Bill, which imposed a 5-business-day waiting period before purchasing a handgun.

    August 25, 1994. Vote 294. Voted to close off debate on the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

    August 25, 1994. Vote 295. Voted for the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

    April 17, 1996. Vote 64. Voted to expand the statute of limitations for paperwork violations in National Firearms Act from 3 years to 5 years.

    June 27, 1996. Vote 178. Voted to destroy 176,000 M-1 Garand rifles from World War II, and 150 million rounds of 30 caliber ammunition, rather than giving them to the Federal Civilian Marksmanship program.

    September 12, 1996. Vote 287. Voted to spend $21.5 million for a study on putting “taggants” in black and smokeless gunpowder.

    September 12, 1996. Vote 290. Voted to make it a Federal crime to possess a gun within 1,000 yards of a school.

    May 12, 1999. Vote 111. Voted to give the Treasury Department expansive new authority to regulate and keep records on gun shows and their participants, and criminalize many intrastate firearms transactions.

    May 13, 1999. Vote 116. Voted to ban the importation of ammunition clips that can hold more than 10 rounds.

    May 14, 1999. Vote 119. Voted to criminalize internet advertisements to sell legal firearms in a legal manner.

    May 18, 1999. Vote 122. Voted to for Mandatory triggerlocks.

    May 20, 1999. Vote 133. Voted to create new Federal regulation of pawn shops handling of guns.

    May 20, 1999. Vote 134. Voted to give the Treasury Department expansive new authority to regulate and keep records on gun shows and their participants, and criminalize many intrastate firearms transactions. The vote was 50-50, with VP Gore casting the tie-breaking vote.

    May 20, 1999. Vote 140. Voted for the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a package of gun control measures.

    July 29, 1999. Vote 224. Voted to close debate on the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a package of gun control measures.

    February 2, 2000. Vote 4. Voted to make firearms manufacturers and distributors’ debts nondischargeable in bankruptcy if they were sued because they unknowingly sold guns to individuals who used the gun in a crime. 68 Senators voted against Reid’s position, including 17 Democrats

    March 2, 2000. Vote 27. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures.

    March 2, 2000. Vote 28. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings (reconsideration of vote 27).

    March 2, 2000. Vote 32. Voted to use Federal taxpayer funds to hand out anti-gun literature in schools and to run anti-gun public service announcements.

    April 6, 2000. Vote 64. Voted for a gun control package including new onerous restrictions on gun shows.

    April 7, 2000. Vote 74. Voted against an amendment to provide for the enforcement of existing gun laws in lieu of new gun control mandates.

    May 16, 2000. Vote 100. Voted to commend the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures.

    May 17, 2000. Vote 102. Voted to overturn the Daschle amendment (commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures) was out of order.

    May 17, 2000. Vote 103. Voted against an amendment stating “the right of each law-abiding United States citizen to own a firearm for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense or recreation, should not be infringed.”

    May 17, 2000. Vote 104. Voted for an amendment commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures.

    February 26, 2004. Vote 17. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks.
    March 2, 2004. Vote 25. Voted for Federal regulation of gun shows.
    July 28, 2005. Vote 207. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks.

    March 5, 2009. Vote 83. Voted against a ban on the United Nations imposing taxes on American citizens after France and other world leaders proposed a global tax on firearms.

    Skee (8e4dda)

  140. I quit the nra a few weeks ago after 40 years as a life member. wayne has lost his way to even suggest he might support such a low life as reid. We will keep our guns just fine without the nra. To send $$$ to this org is a slap to all Americans-harry should be in prison-Shame on the nra to even suggest he deserves to be supported. The nra may not go down but they will become a 3rd rate org with their lack of public statments to convey their stance to us little people. While we wait for king wayne to bless us with his crystal ball forecast on the on the nov election. If the nra had some cajoles they would run the entire board out of office.

    God Bless The USA. herk fin- Arizona

    herk fin (73a184)

  141. 9/1/2010

    Subject- nra vs herk fin

    Hello all. Approx 6 weeks ago the nra floated a news leak that they might endorse harry reid. When they received a landslide of negative feedback they stated that they were only testing. Yesterday 8/31/2010 they announced they will not be endorsing harry. @ the same time they are taking members’ money ($5000) to give to harry’s campaign. Harry is the closest thing I have seen to the anti-Christ. He and others have contributed to the breakdown of this great country. After 40 years of life membership I have left and quite honestly with a fair amount of anger. The nra ‘s logic is if politicians are pro gun they will endorse them. Using this same logic if obama was pro gun they would endorse him. I object them telling me I just don’t understand the beltway mentality. Over 40 years I have donated thousands of dollars to the org and they now are still saying they are a one issue organization. The bottom line is that I am asking (almost begging) all of you to call ,write, email the nra & ask them why they would support the ilks of reid. To provide $ to this organization is a slap in the face of millions of people that sent their hard earned $ to defeat people like reid. They are a cash cow with their mailing program but I think they might be trying to milk a bull. Please confirm or deny my statements. If you like harry reid join the nra. Also please confirm and I will be pleased to remove you from this rant. GUNS YES- nra NO. God bless America herk fin

    herk fin (73a184)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7769 secs.