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

NRA----> Harry Reid

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by bigdogtx, Jul 15, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bigdogtx

    bigdogtx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    10,650
    Mine looks EXACTLY like that one...
     
  2. Francis Marion

    Francis Marion Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,737
    I also heard that the NRA endorsed dingy Harry. Acording to them it's not true, but I didn't imagine it either. If they do endorse him later on, SCREW THEM! No way in hell that asshole would ever stand up for a gun owner on a national scale. Maybe little shit in Vegas, but nothing that really matters. That is my one bitch with the NRA. No big picture thinking. Absolutely useless to endorse ANY Democrat. The powers to be would make sure no meaningful or swing vote ever went in the favor of gun owners.
     
  3. Gary Waalkes

    Gary Waalkes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,400
    Steve Mainus - I think you missed some of the "big picture" things or perhaps you did not actually read the post. He has stood for gun owners over the last few years. Although I have made a contribution to Sharron Angle's campaign, and probably will again, the last paragraph of the NRA article is worth thinking about. No one believes the Rs can retake the senate so who is going to be the majority leader if Reid is voted out?

    "who would take Reid's place if he loses his race-and his critically important position as Senate Majority Leader? Remember, the Senate Majority Leader is the gatekeeper who decides which legislation will be considered on the Senate floor. If Sen. Reid loses, the next candidate for Majority Leader is very likely to be Charles Schumer of New York or Dick Durbin of Illinois -two of the most anti-gun U.S. Senators in history!"

    Like I said, I have donated to the Angle campaign but getting a true anti-gunner as majority leader is going to be expensive for those of us who actually support the Keep and Bear Arms cause.
     
  4. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    I was told last evening by an NRA regional director that NRA's thinking is that if Harry Reid loses, Chuck Schumer will become the head of the senate. He sat right there and said who do you want in charge of the senate, Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer? So in other words you stab a pro gun senatorial prospect in the back, destroy her campaign, and tell every pro-gun future candidate don't bother running because NRA will destroy you. Yea, that is real tactical thinking. By the way, that's IF the dems keep the senate.
     
  5. bigdogtx

    bigdogtx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    10,650
    Too bad they have written off the election already....

    Borrowed from another post by Brian in Oregon:

    Is Harry Reid pro-gun or anti-gun?

    -- --- You Decide

    Nevada Senator Harry Reid claims to be a defender of the Second Amendment. Is that really the case? You decide. Here is a list of votes he has cast over the past twenty years in the U.S. Senate:

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

    2. November 19, 1993—Voted to eliminate the five-year sunset in the Brady Bill's five day waiting period, which would have made the waiting period permanent (Vote No. 386).

    3. November 19, 1993—Voted to end a filibuster led by pro-gun Senators against the Brady Bill (Vote No. 387).

    4. November 20, 1993—Voted for the Brady Bill, which imposed a 5-day waiting period before purchasing a handgun (Vote No. 394).

    5. August 25, 1994—Voted to end a filibuster led by pro-gun Senators against the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on many semi-automatic firearms (the so-called "assualt weapons ban; Vote No. 294).

    6. August 25, 1994—Voted for the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on many semi-automatic firearms (the so-called "assault weapons" ban; Vote No. 295).

    7. April 17, 1996—Voted to expand the statute of limitations for paperwork violations in the National Firearms Act from 3 years to 5 years (Vote No. 64).

    8. June 27, 1996—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 (Vote No. 178).

    9. September 12, 1996—Voted to spend $21.5 million for a study on putting "taggants" in black and smokeless gunpowder (Vote No. 287).

    10. September 12, 1996—Voted to make it a Federal crime to possess a gun within 1,000 feet of any school, private or public, and impose a 5-year prison sentence for violating the law (Vote No. 290).

    11. July 28, 1998—Voted against killing an amendment offered by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) to prohibit the importation of firearm magazines holding over 10 rounds that were manufactured before the 1994 ban was enacted (Vote No. 240).

    12. May 12, 1999—Voted to ban the private sales of firearms at gun shows unless buyers submitted to background registration checks. Draconian restrictions would have also been imposed on gun show promoters, expanding federal authority in this area (Vote No. 111).

    13. May 13, 1999—Voted to ban the importation of ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds (Vote No. 116).

    14. May 14, 1999—Voted for an amendment introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) that would regulate the transfer of firearms over the Internet (Vote No. 119).

    15. May 18, 1999—Voted for an amendment to force gun sellers to include trigger locks with every handgun sold (Vote No. 122).

    16. May 20, 1999—Voted for legislation to subject repair shop and pawn shop transactions to the same registration and background check requirements as purchases from dealers—even if a person was reclaiming his own firearm (Vote No. 133).

    17. May 20, 1999—Voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) that would ban private sales at gun shows, unless the buyer first submits to a background registration check. Even displaying a firearm at a gun show, and subsequently transferring that gun to a non-licensee, would result in a two-year prison sentence. The amendment would also have granted BATF open-ended inspection authority to harass vendors at gun shows, and explicitly gives BATF the right to keep a gun owner registration list for up to 90 days. This amendment passed 51-50, with Vice President Al Gore breaking the tie (Vote No. 134).

    18. May 20, 1999—Voted for the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a host of gun control provisions (Vote No. 140).

    19. July 28, 1999—Voted to end a filibuster on the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill. The filibuster was led by Sen. Bib Smith (R-NH) because of concerns with the gun control provisions in the bill (Vote No. 224).

    20. February 2, 2000—Voted for an amendment offered by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) to help the cities bring frivolous suits against gun makers (Vote No. 4).

    21. March 2, 2000—Voted for an amendment offered by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) blaming school violence on 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 (Vote No. 28).

    22. March 2, 2000—Voted to use Federal taxpayer funds to hand out anti-gun literature in schools and to run anti-gun public service announcements (Vote No. 32).

    23. April 6, 2000—Voted for and cosponsored a "sense of the Senate" amendment urging the passage of new gun control restrictions (Vote No. 64).

    24. March 2, 2000—Voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) urging the passage of the ant-gun juvenile crime bill being opposed by GOA (Vote No. 28).

    25. April 10, 2000—Voted for a non-binding amendment offered by Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) urging the House-Senate conferees to get the juvenile anti-gun bill to the floor of each chamber by April 20 (Vote No. 64).

    26. May 17, 2000—Voted with 29 other F-rated Senators 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." (Vote No. 103).

    27. May 17, 2000—Voted for a resolution praising the participants of the so-called Million Mom March, and calling on Congress to pass the anti-gun juvenile crime bill that GOA was fighting (Vote No. 104).

    28. April 2, 2001—Voted for the Incumbent Protection Act, so-called campaign finance reform (Vote No. 64).

    29. March 20, 2002—Voted to end a filibuster of the odious Incumbent Protection bill. The blatantly unconstitutional legislation squelches the voice of groups like Gun Owners of America in the final days before an election. By making it difficult, if not impossible, for groups to criticize the anti-gun actions of legislators prior to an election, incumbents are able to duck accountability for those actions (Vote No. 53).

    30. February 26, 2004—Voted for an amendment to require all handgun purchasers to pay an implicit "gun tax" by requiring them to buy a trigger lock when they purchase their handgun, irrespective of need. In addition, the amendment would create a broad cause of action against gun owners who fail to actually use the storage device to lock up their firearms (Vote No. 17).

    31. March 2, 2004—Voted to outlaw the private sale of firearms at gun shows unless the buyer agrees to submit to an FBI background registration check. This legislative would have effectively eliminated gun shows because of stringent requirements placed on event sponsors (Vote No. 25).

    32. July 28, 2005—Voted for an amendment to require all handgun purchasers to pay an implicit "gun tax" by requiring them to buy a trigger lock when they purchase their handgun, irrespective of need (Vote No. 207).

    33. September 29, 2005—Voted against John Roberts for Supreme Court Justice. Roberts' record and testimony to the Senate show that he is strong advocate for Second Amendment rights. Had Reid's position prevailed on this vote, the 5-4 decisions in Heller and McDonald could have gone the other way (Vote No. 245).

    34. January 18, 2007—Voted against an amendment to strike language in a bill that would infringe upon the free speech rights of groups like GOA by requiring them to monitor and report on communications with members, and could easily have led to government demands for organizational membership list (a.k.a. registration) (Vote No. 17).

    35. January 31, 2006—Voted against Samuel Alito for Supreme Court Justice. Justice Alito's record and testimony to the Senate show that he is strong advocate for Second Amendment rights. Had Reid's position prevailed on this vote, the 5-4 decisions in Heller and McDonald could have gone the other way (Vote No. 2) .

    36. February 2, 2009—Voted to confirm Eric Holder as Attorney General. Holder was an anti-Second Amendment official for the Clinton administration, and has called for a renewal of the Clinton gun ban (Vote No. 32).

    37. March 19, 2009—Voted to massively expand the amount of land covered by the National Parks gun ban. As Majority Leader, Reid frustrated the efforts of pro-gun Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) for more than a year to repeal the gun ban. Sen. Coburn's position ultimately prevailed after overcoming Reid's opposition later in 2009 (Vote No. 106).

    38. June 25, 2009—Voted to confirm Harold Koh as Legal Advisor to the Department of State. GOA warned all Senators that Koh is a radical globalist pushing for worldwide gun control regulation, including the UN Treaty on Small Arms (Vote No. 213).

    39. August 6, 2009—Voted to confirm Sonya Sotomayor as Supreme Court Justice. GOA warned all Senators that Judge Sotomayor's record on gun rights was one of hostility to the Second Amendment, which was born out in her dissent in the McDonald decision (Vote No. 262).

    40. September 9, 2009—Voted to confirm Cass Sunstein as Administrator of Regulatory Affairs (Regulatory Czar). GOA notified all Senators that Cass Sunstein is a radical leftist who would like to ban hunting and give animals some of the same rights as humans in the courtroom (Vote No. 273).

    41. December 24, 2009—Reid used his position as Majority Leader to pass the ObamaCare legislation. This bill will allow the BATFE and FBI to troll through the ObamaCare database for gun owners who would be disqualified because of their medical information (Vote No. 396).
     
  6. WS-1

    WS-1 Banned User Banned

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

    You and I both know that the Schumer/Durbin argument is a "Red Herring." We MUST reduce the number of democrat Senators and increase the number of Republican Senators. Even a 45/55 split gives us back the power of the FILIBUSTER. The benefits of getting rid of Reid are becoming entirely too obvious to everybody but the board of the NRA. This is really starting to smell like putrid vegetables. I'm starting to feel like I did when the democrats rammed Health Care down our throats. We told them we didn't want it but they did it anyway. Could the NRA be calculating a Republican/Tea Party loss in November? Are they betting against us? Do you think they have cut a deal?

    Kit
     
  7. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    From the speech of Patrick Henry: "...Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."


    I have eyes, and I have ears, and a brain to think and reason with, and I am willing to know the whole truth, whatever pain it may cost, and to deal with it. Everything that I can see and hear tells me that NRA has become an amoral, arrogant, power mongering giant. Much like the American Red Cross which lost sight of the purpose for their existence, and became corrupt and bloated by their own success, I believe NRA has lost any moral rudder that would steer them. They have lost sight of the difference between right and wrong, and now define success purely in terms of strategy and what is good for NRA. What is good for them is never to lose the war, but never to win it either. The money, the power, the position, the rubbing elbows with powerful people, new buildings, the ear of the media, conventions, the tuxedos, the grand speeches, people star struck at their big events, this is what I believe NRA exists for today.

    When I see a big write up for one of the foulest people in America today in NRA's magazines, and in that same time frame they either cut or accepted a deal (I believe the former) in which they threw every freedom promoting organisation in America under the bus so NRA could sit in the throne of power, then yes, I believe I see the parameters of a deal having been made. NRA gets to be the only organisation to speak on conservative issues, and in return they get dirty Harry his senate re-election.

    As I said before, if NRA was justified in the treachery they did to liberty because they are a one issue organisation, then the Brady Campaign and Handgun Control Inc was equally justified in every rotten thing they ever did to we shooters, because they too were single issue organisations.

    I too smell that odor of rot, Kit.
     
  8. Fast Oil

    Fast Oil TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    918
    First, I am not from Nevada, therefor I can not make a difference in the vote.

    I went to Sharron Angle's website, Endorsed by GOA and has a "A" rating from NRA.

    I know that the NRA has not endorsed a candidate yet but I say by throwing Harry out, it would send a strong message to any Dem that would replace him.

    I do not trust the current polititions including some Republicans, too many times if they have more than enough votes to pass a bill, the leadership will give a pass to some to vote so as to protect their position at home.

    Could these recent pro gun votes by Harry be a ploy to keep a swing vote in his favor? A endorsement by the NRA keeps all the DEM NRA members definatly on his side. If the NRA does not endorse him would he lose some of those DEM votes?

    We know where Chuck Schumer stands. I say we stand to throw Harry out and then if need be, we turn all cannons to take on the next politition that stands in the way of our Second Amendment rights.
     
  9. Paladin

    Paladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,386
    Gary Waalkes wrote: "No one believes the Rs can retake the senate so who is going to be the majority leader if Reid is voted out?"


    Maybe you had better start reading/listening to the news, or at least get a more reliable source.


    11 seats are in play.
    Even hussein spokesperson Robert Gibbs conceded the possibility that Republicans could retake the House in the upcoming midterm elections.
     
  10. grnberetcj

    grnberetcj Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,680
    Reid is just a good start...more work to be done!!

    Curt
    [​IMG]
     
  11. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,643
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    Looks like Harry just became a gun supporter for the nice effect.

    I would shitcan him.

    HM
     
  12. wolfram

    wolfram Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Messages:
    6,260
    Nevada is a pro gun state if there is such a thing - Harry Reid is well aware of that fact. The NRA's rating on Harry could have a significant effect on the outcome of the November election. We think it will be a close race and Harry Reid has a lot more money and experience at winning elections than his opponent. This actually one time where I hope people don't cast their vote based on the single issue of gun rights and what the NRA does or does not say.
     
  13. WS-1

    WS-1 Banned User Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3,885
    So, Guys, if Soros had his choice between Playboy and the NRA, which one would he buy?

    Just asking.
     
  14. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    From THE SHOOTING WIRE:

    On a separate note, the idea that the National Rifle Association may be preparing to give a formal endorsement to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in his hard-fought campaign for reelection is being tossed about in the mainstream media as an all but done deal.

    For the past two weeks, NRA members have been in a furor at the idea. NRA leaders, have kept quite on the subject, even as as the Reid campaign runs a video showing Reid with NRA head honcho Wayne LaPierre chumming it up at the dedication of a multi-million dollar shooting facility outside Las Vegas earlier this year.

    The fact they're not squealing about the video being politicized is, in itself, a pretty strong admission that the organization is, once again, hedging its bets when it comes to politics.

    Reid's in a dogfight with Republican Sharon Angle, and campaign records released yesterday show her campaign contributions leading Reid's from April through June. She says the fact 46,000 people donated an average of $49 shows "how much people want to retire Harry Reid."

    Meanwhile, Gun Owners of America has made it abundantly clear they don't support Reid. Yesterday, GOA released a statement endorsing Angle. They also compiled a list of forty-two reasons why Harry Reid "MUST be defeated" (their capitalization).

    We'll keep you posted.

    - Jim Shepherd
     
  15. Gary Waalkes

    Gary Waalkes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,400
    So there it is folks - I have donated to the Sharron Angle campaign and probably will again. What are all of you doing to help get her elected??

    Mr. Paladin - the Senate is NOT in play for a R take-over in 2010. You even wrote that gibbs was talking about the House. Perhaps you need to take another civics lesson so you would know the difference.

    there are 36 Senate seats up in 2010. 5 D's are retiring, 6 Rs are retiring. There are 12 D incumbents and 11 R incombents. One D and one R did not get through the primary. For the R's to take over, they need to keep every one of their 18 seats up for election. Then they need to GAIN 10 seats to get to 51. There is ZERO chance of this occuring. Current polling indicates that a maximum of 7 Dem seats are in doubt (in play) and 5 R seats are up for grabs. Please tell us how the Senate will be won by the Rs.
     
  16. Paladin

    Paladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,386
    I stand corrected, Gary Waalkes. An obvious mis-statement by me.


    Regarding "Please tell us how the Senate will be won by the Rs."



    July 14th;


    By Ed Morrissey;


    "To retain control, Democrats need at least 50 seats. They start with 45 seats that are safe or not up for election this year, and there are three more races (NY, CT, and OR) that they are likely to win, for a total of 48. (The comparable number for Republicans is 41.) That leaves 11 seats in play.

    There are some elections years (1980, 1986, and 2006 come to mind) when most of the close races tip in the same direction, producing a shift of control. 2010 could be another.


    Galston lists eleven seats that Democrats may well lose in November and the most recent polling he had before publication. Some of those polls have shifted a bit; the latest Rasmussen survey on the Boxer-Fiorina race puts Boxer back into the lead, and another on the Nevada race that brings Reid within three of Angle. Still, the implication is clear — a national momentum shift could allow Republicans to sweep these races and put both chambers of Congress back in Republican hands.


    That still appears to be a long shot, even with this list. On the other hand, each of these races look winnable now for Republicans, even in such usually Democratic states as Washington and California, where weak incumbents will face a huge anti-incumbent reaction this year. Galston holds out hope that Rand Paul will fall to Jack Conway in Kentucky, but that seems less likely than Russ Feingold winning his re-election fight in Wisconsin against Ron Johnson.



    If the GOP can gain five or six seats, it will still be a big victory and will force Democrats to start compromising. They won’t get legislation through the upper chamber simply by flipping one Republican vote any longer, which will make the White House and Senate Majority Leader — whoever it turns out to be in the 112th — come to Republicans to craft middle-of-the-road bills on shared priorities, or get nothing done at all. But if Galston’s prediction comes true, it would be an utter disaster for Barack Obama, and shine an even brighter spotlight on his leadership inadequacies.



    Update: Here’s an interesting update on the Wisconsin race. The Johnson campaign announced it has raised over $550,000 in the second quarter. If that seems a little low, remember that Johnson only started his campaign on May 17th — which means he raised that money in about seven weeks."


    Lastly, I will just ignore your "There is ZERO chance of this occurring" statement, regardless of the possibility.
     
  17. b12

    b12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,049
    Harry will lean anyway the wind blows to get to keep his seat. But in the end he is still against guns by looking how he voted.
    The reason we are in this terrible situtation today is because people only like to hear good things and fall for all the fairytale bull.

    If he retains his seat you will fin out that at the end of the day the rat will crawl back to his Democrate Den. Remember as rose is still a rose by any other name.
     
  18. Gary Waalkes

    Gary Waalkes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,400
    Mr. Paladin - I don't think you even read your own post -

    "That still appears to be a long shot, even with this list" and "If the GOP can gain five or six seats" So your author does not really believe they have a shot at the majority. (Please tell everyone that your author (Ed Morrissey) is just a full time blogger and not a pollster.)

    Regardless, hope is not going to win anything. I hope you and others here are putting their money down on conservative candidates (donating to campaigns in states other than their own) - I am - even though it is not a winning bet - but I do think Angle has a good shot and so does Toomey in Pa - if they get the funding to run a campaign. On the other hand - here in De, we are going to elect Mike Castle "a republican" to the Senate - sadly, he hates guns and loves abortions so counting on him to support any true conservative cause is pretty iffy.
     
  19. Paladin

    Paladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,386
    Gary Waalkes:

    Speaking of reading your own posts, you wrote "There is ZERO chance of this occurring". The fact remains, there is a possibility, regardless of what you, me or Ed Morrissey believes might happen.


    Your ""Zero"" chance is the issue here, and you are wrong.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.