1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Harry Reid

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by WS-1, Jul 8, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. WS-1

    WS-1 Banned User Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3,885
    Recently, a member here included some demographic data in one of his posts. I was inspired to do a little research in an effort to support a very flawed and highly implausible theory of my own manufacture. My search revealed that approximately 129 million voters cast ballots in the last General Election. Of that number, approximately 69 million (52.9%) registered voters voted for Obama while approximately 60 million (52.9%) voted for McCain. Not including the Young Republicans, the Young Democrats, and the SIEU, et. al. in my group, I am going to theorize that the membership of many other organizations breaks out along political and ethnic lines much like the vote percentages broke out in the last election. If my theory is correct, it would follow that more than 50% of the members of the NRA are democrats. I suppose there are preconceived notions that would poo-poo such a position but I can't come up with any rationale that I can use to invalidate it. After all, why would a person's political party preference have any bearing on whether or not he or she would want to own and use firearms? People seem to forget party affiliation while involved in life and death struggles using firearms.

    I had always assumed that the NRA was an organization with deep conservative Republican ties. I just read, however, a quote that stated "the 'R' in NRA doesn't stand for Republican." So, what if the political make-up of the NRA is now closer to 50/50 than any of you had previously thought. That would mean that as many as 2 million NRA members voted for Obama. That would also mean that as many as 2 million NRA members voted for Senators and Members of the House of Representatives who supported Health-care reform, defecit spending which will possibly destroy our Nation's economy, and limits on free speech which could throttle Rush Limbaugh and other popular voices of conservatism.

    What do Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and our dearly departed Teddy Kennedy have in common? They are on a long list of democrat congressmen who want to re-institute the "Fairness Doctrine." Simply, the Fairness Doctrine is designed to eradicate Freedom of Speech. The Fairness Doctrine is a little like the Disclose Act. Without Freedom of Speech, we would not enjoy liberties afforded us by our membership in Trapshooters.com.

    Harry Reid is the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate. The democrat party currently holds the majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives. The democrat party doesn't like the Republican Party and they will try to do anything they can to deprive the Republican Party and its conservative base of its constitutionally guaranteed rights. It seems logical, then, for an organization which quietly enjoys the allegiance of as many as 2 million democrats to insist that they are a single issue organization. To hide behind the old mantra, "We support incumbents who continue to support our single-issue agenda" simultaneously deflects criticism from gun-loving conservatives and advances the multi-issue agenda of the socialist/communist democrats.

    I want more Republicans and Conservatives serving in Congress than socialists, communists, and democrats. It would follow that I do not want to see Harry Reid re-elected to the Senate. 6 more years of Harry Reid exposes us all, not just 2nd Amendment advocates to, among other things, a Senate majority that will ultimately approve "Death Panels," send our country into bankruptcy, dishonor our fallen by leaving the field of battle before a complete victory has been achieved, and undermine our Rights given us by the Constitution in the Bill of Rights(of which there are 10, not just 1).

    The Harry Reid issue, which has been the talk of the town for the last few days, will disappear as quickly as it appeared if the NRA leadership, in a very public statement, promptly announces that it will not endorse either candidate in Nevada but be quoted as saying both candidates are "Supporters of Gun Rights."

    Harry Reid uses the 2nd Amendment like a Trojan Horse. His true agenda is concealed. If the NRA openly endorses Harry Reid, they are openly supporting a multi-issue candidate who, by word and deed, is more socialist than democrat. If the NRA chooses to support Harry Reid, they will be helping to grant a multi-issue political victory to the DEMOCRAT party at a time when we, as Conservative Americans, need to take control of this runaway train and save our country.

    Respectfully,
    Kit Thomas
     
  2. TC

    TC TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    931
    Thanks Kit, well said. Something to think about. Tony
     
  3. Barry C. Roach

    Barry C. Roach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,209
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    With all that pharmaceutical money backing him, he will likely win another term. I hope Nevada smartens up.
     
  4. WS-1

    WS-1 Banned User Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3,885
    Maybe it's time for the NRA to show their strength and come out in support of his opponent.

    Respectfully,
    Kit Thomas
     
  5. JH

    JH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,359
    You are persistent, WS-1....The NRA is a pro-gun ORGANIZATION....it is not a political party....I am sure there are some Communists, Nazi, Socialists, Conservatives ,etc. affiliated NRA members.....we are not chartered to do the bidding of any political party....we vote for people who vote pro-gun.....Reid is anathema to conservatives, understood....but, he also has kept Pelosi, Schumer, etc. at bay with their anti-gun agenda....he knows voting for gun control will cost him his seat in Nevada....we need liberals to FEAR voting for gun control...THEY FEAR GUN OWNERS AND THEY FEAR THE NRA....that is a GOOD THING!

    We only focus on the issue of private firearm ownership......why don't you hypothesize about the UAW, NEA, ACLU voting patterns.......your constant attacks against NRA membership for being "too liberal" is counterproductive and....STUPID...By the way, how many conservatives voted for McCain/Palin? Did most conservatives refrain from voting in the last presidential election and in effect, helped elect Obama (who now will appoint liberal judges to the Supreme Court jeopardizing gun rights)? Yes, let's poll conservatives. How many did not vote? Did you vote for McCain/Palin? Or, were they too liberal too?
     
  6. stokinpls

    stokinpls Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    6,487
    Here's some soothing music while you ponder this thread.

    She was the lib's darling in bygone days. Should be tough getting movie parts from here on out.
     
  7. g7777777

    g7777777 TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,353
    WS 1 -- are you even a member of the NRA- how many years of your adult life have you been a member?

    Have you ever voted in one of their elections?

    Why would you assume the NRA was Republican-- they arent- they are pro firearm rights- why cant you figure this stuff out.

    As far as Reid- you think he has a hidden gun agenda? that he has hidden for his entire life? just from you?

    Reid by the way has been the strongest supporter of veterans rights ever and is a strong supporter of the military- have you ever served WS-1?

    Besides those two issues- Veterans rights and gun rights- he does seem way off track- as far as my likes and dislikes are concerned but we arent discussing that.

    We are discussing how wrong you are WS-1 and how it is you that needs to be more pro gun and support the NRA.

    Wake up and quit posting this rambling drivel with false facts and really stupid assumptions on your part.

    Wake up and get involved in politics if you want but quit bashing the NRA and shooting your guns at the same time.

    regards from Iowa

    Gene
     
  8. warren

    warren Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    948
    Location:
    Fernley, Nevada
    If you are so worried about Harry Reid then donate to Sharon Angle she can use the money and is a true gun rights advocate.

    warren
     
  9. jimrich60

    jimrich60 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    Since a majority of Dems apparently support gun control (not all, but almost certainly a majority, as evidenced over the years by constantly supporting and voting for such), it is highly unlikely that that, as claimed by WS-1 (without a single shred of actual evidence), 50% of NRA members are democrat.

    This is not to say that many gun owners are not democrats, as many certainly are. In fact, there are an estimated 80 million gun owners in America and only 5 million of these belong to the NRA, so there is plenty of room among gun owners for democrats. In fact, a lot of gun owners are pro gun control in reality.

    As evidence, I know that one of the most anti-gun Supreme Court justices never answers his door at night without a gun on his person. More evidence, some years ago when I was still living in the D.C. area, one of the Washington Posts most strident anti-gun writers shot and seriously wounded a youth who had "invaded" the writers yard (with other teens) to use the writers pool, although the youth was making no move to threaten the writer. The gun used had been illegally given to the writer by his brother, a former marine, and was kept loaded and in the house, disregarding D.C. law and was not registered. (needless to say, the writer was not prosecuted, either for the shooting, nor for having and using an illegal handgun in D.C.). Shortly after the shooting, the writer did another anti-gun article, saying no one (else) had the right to a handgun, while at the same time claiming he (and apparently only he) had a right to "defend" himself.

    Thus, many anti-gunners (usually left wing democrats, altho that is redundant), only have problems with other people having guns. This likely helps explain why so many gun owners do not belong to the NRA.

    It is obvious to me that the left wing campaign against the NRA in an effort to eliminate its threat to anti-gun politicians continues, both in the left wing media (most all) and on this forum.

    Jim R
     
  10. porky

    porky TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,267
    I personally think that everyone that voted in the Health Care bill should be voted out. Another thing about the Health Care Bill is that Harry Reid made it almost if not impossible, due to the wording, to have it ever removed from the books. Harry and all lke him have to go. I agree that Harry uses the 2nd Amendment as a weapon against Americans. If Harry gets back in then we deserve everything that he does to us. Harry has already shown his true colors and they aren't for the red, white and blue and the citizens in it.
     
  11. grnberetcj

    grnberetcj Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,680
    Just 4 months away!!

    Curt

    [​IMG]
     
  12. blade819

    blade819 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    4,467
    Kit:

    I am going to take issue with your definition of the Fairness Doctrine.(simply stated). It is not a doctrine to "eradicate Freedome of Speech" ! It is a doctrine that states that an FCC licence holder (namely radio)who talks about controversial subjects (talk radio)mandate that they present both sides of that controversial subject. I do not view that as a limit of Freedom of Speech but as "Fairness". Of course that would effect just about every talk radio program both right and left.

    blade819
     
  13. jimrich60

    jimrich60 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    Blade

    Actually, the practical effect (by democrat design) is to affect "freedom of speech" There are few "liberal" talk shows, for instance, versus the number of "conservative" talk shows. The reason for this is not because radio stations will not put on liberal talk shows because of ideology, but for reasons of profit and loss. Conservative talk shows are enormously popular and draw large audiences. Hence, these shows attract advertisers and the radio station makes a profit. Liberal talk shows, on the other hand, most often do not attract large audiences, thus do not attract advertisers, and are thus net losses for radio stations. The most recent, and most glaring example of this is/was "Air America". Despite the infusion of many millions of dollars, the show had to declare bankruptcy after only a very short period because it could not attract enough audience for advertisers to invest money in supporting it.

    But, under the so-called "fairness doctrine" radio shows carrying a "conservative" talk show, would also have to provide equal time for a "liberal" talk show. Since this would amount to economic "suicide" for most radio stations, such stations would simply have to stop carrying the conservative show to be "fair". Hence, it would restrict freedom of speech and substitute the government to determine the radio station content through government regulation in a false claim of "fairness".

    The doctrine is neither "fair" nor constitutional. Period.

    Jim R
     
  14. WS-1

    WS-1 Banned User Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3,885
    Blade819,

    Thank you for your reply.

    I believe that the First Amendment gives us the right to say what we want to say. In that light, I have the right to discuss my side of a controversial
    topic on the radio, in my living room, and on Trapshooters.com

    I believe that the Ninth Amendment underscores the First Amendment in that it gives me the right to discuss only the controversial topics of my choosing.

    In the same way that the First Amendment gives me the right to say what I want, the Ninth grants me the right to never have to say what I don't want to say. In other words, the Constitution protects me from being forced to speak.

    If I was forced to present two sides of a topic about which I only wanted to present one, my Freedom would be infringed in the same way it would be infringed if I were forced to admit to a crime I did not commit.

    I have to ask myself this question: if I owned a radio station, would I want the Government to tell me what I had to say on my broadcasts?

    Respectfully,
    Kit Thomas
     
  15. blade819

    blade819 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    4,467
    Kit:

    Your response is reasonable and appreciated along with Jim R.'s. I agree that economically it would be suicide for conservitive radio stations. However, when the owner of that station pays for a licence, that owner operates under the guidelines of the FCC. As long as there are "rules" that govern the operation, should Freedom of Speech really be taken for granted on the radio? I know people who refuse to wear a seatbelt. Because it's law does that infringe on their constitutional rights? By the way, I like to drive fast but I am breaking the speed limit which is law. I guess we can go on and on. Bottom line is that there is a way for us to reasonably argue and disagree without some of the name calling and bickering that seems to go on here and everywhere else. Thank you both for your opinions.

    blade819
     
  16. slic lee

    slic lee Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,026
    Location:
    Miami Beach florida
    You cant trust the NRA blindly they are on a leash.
    A vote for reid is a vote for becoming a subject instead of a citizen.
     
  17. WS-1

    WS-1 Banned User Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3,885
    Blade819,

    Thank you!

    Kit
     
  18. jimrich60

    jimrich60 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    Blade

    Two points related to your latest post you may want to consider. First, freedom of speech is a fundamental right(or in the viewpoint and words of the Framers, rights given by the Creator), and the First Amendment prohibits the government from legally interfering with it. Whatever rules and regulations the FCC makes in order for a radio station to get a licence may not, per the First Amendment, interfere with that freedom of speech. The FCC cannot legally or ethically over rule the Constitution.

    Second, driving is neither a fundamental right, nor any other kind of "right" in the view of the Constitution. It is purely a privilege granted by the government(s). Thus in the case of driving, they can make laws on speeds, seat belts, or whatever, without infringing upon any fundamental rights or Constitutional issues. Freedom of speech and driving are apples and oranges when it comes to "rights".

    Just some thoughts for your consideration

    Regards, Jim R
     
  19. JH

    JH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,359
    slic lee,

    Do you distrust the NRA because......you are....

    1. Some supporter of a Yappy, INEFFECTUAL, POLITICALLY POWERLESS, INCONSEQUENTIAL, so-called pro-gun fringe/marginal group who seeks to poison/divide NRA members.....and recruit some into your group.....or,

    2. A left-wing mole who seeks to promote gun bans by weakening the most effective pro-gun organization in the world.

    3. Someone who fell out of the back of a pick-up and landed on his head.

    4. Or, some kind of contrary guy in need of attention....

    Stand up for the NRA! Speak up! Join the NRA!
     
  20. GRUMPN

    GRUMPN TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Messages:
    49
    Tell me blade, when you have any discussions about your opinions on ANY subject do your present both sides of the issue to BE FAIR? Ric
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Search tags for this page

content