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

The NRA is Helping the Anti Gun Democrats

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by wireguy, Oct 7, 2010.

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

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    The NRA is Helping Preserve the Anti Gun Democrat Majority



    Tuesday, October 5th at 8:07AM EDT


    Believe it or not, the only ones who might help Nancy Pelosi save her House majority are those who run legislative affairs at the NRA. So called Blue Dog Democrats across the nation are campaigning as red meat conservatives in their home districts, while running deceptive ads about their Republican opponents. They campaign as if they have nothing to do with the Democrat Party that they propelled to power and which passed all of the nefarious legislation that they purport to oppose. The sick irony is that the more successful these liars are in distancing themselves from Pelosi, the more likely it will be that Pelosi will remain Speaker. Here is my previous report on the need to expose the blue dogs. Also, check out the Club for Growth’s excellent report on the lie of the conservative Democrat.

    Fortunately, as long as the conservative rhetoric is coming from the Democrat candidates themselves, the voters aren’t buying it. However, when the NRA parachutes in and endorses that Democrat for reelection over their 2nd amendment champion Republican opponents, people might give credence to their claims of being born again conservatives. The sad thing is that the NRA is endorsing Democrats in the very districts that we must win in order to obtain 39 seats. Here is a list of some of the Democrats who the NRA is endorsing that could cost us the majority:


    AL-2: Bobby Bright
    AR-4: Mike Ross
    Ca-18: Dennis Cardoza
    CO-3: John Salazar
    CO-4: Betsy Markey
    FL-2: Allen Boyd
    Ga-2: Sanford Bishop
    Ga-8: Jim Marshall
    Ga-12: John Barrow
    IA-3: Leonard Boswell
    IL-11: Debbie Halvorson
    IL-12: Jerry Costello
    IN-Senate-Brad Ellsworth
    IN-2: Joe Donnely
    IN-8: Trent Van Haaften
    IN-9: Baron Hill
    KY-6: Ben Chandler
    MD-1: Frank Kratovil
    MI-1: Gary McDowell
    MN-1: Tim Walz
    MS-1: Travis Childers
    MS-4: Gene Taylor
    MO-4: Ike Skelton
    NC-7: Mike McIntyre
    NC-8: Larry Kissell
    NC-11: Heath Shuler
    ND-At Large: Earl Pomeroy
    NM-1: Martin Heinrich
    NM-2: Harry Teague
    NM-3: Ben Lujan
    NY-20: Scott Murphy
    NY-23: Bill Owens
    NY-24: Mike Acruri
    OH-Gov. Ted Strickland
    OH-6: Charlie Wilson
    OH-16: John Boccieri
    OH-18: Zack Space
    OK-2: Dan Boren
    OR-5: Kurt Schrader
    PA-4: Jason Altmire
    PA-10: Chris Carney
    PA-11: Paul Kanjorski
    PA-12: Mark Critz
    PA-17: Tim Holden
    SD-At Large: Stephanie Sandlin
    TN-4: Lincoln Davis
    TN-8: Roy Herron
    TX-17: Chet Edwards
    UT-2: Jim Matheson
    VA-2: Glenn Nye
    VA-5: Tom Perriello
    VA-9: Rick Boucher
    WI-3: Ron Kind
    WI-8: Steve Kagen
    WV-Senate: Joe Manchin
    WV-3: Nick Rahall

    There are a total of 53 Democrats in competitive/semi competitive districts that the NRA has endorsed. There is simply no pathway to the majority without winning most of these seats. Let me pose the following question. What would be a more effective advertisement in these districts, an endorsement from the Sierra Club or from the NRA? I think that it is quite clear that the NRA is one of the most effective organizations that are helping to preserve the Democrats majority.

    It is important to note that the NRA is also staying out of some of the most vital Senate races like the Nevada Senate race because they are too scared of angering the Democrats. In addition, they have endorsed Joe Manchin in West Virginia and Brad Ellsworth in Indiana.

    The damning question for the hacks at the NRA is this. If your endorsements really achieve their desired results and save those red district Democrats from defeat, then how can the GOP take back the House? Do you really think that a Pelosi led congress would be more pro second amendment than the Republican led congress?

    The NRA political hacks keep repeating ad nauseum that they endorse pro second amendment candidates, not conservative ones. But here is the problem. They are endorsing those who belong to a party that is anti gun at its core, and who are only pandering to the gun lobby to get elected in their right leaning districts. Worse yet, they are endorsing these frauds over staunch pro gun legislators like Andy Harris (MD-1) and Kristi Noem (SD-At Large). They make it seem as if they are endorsing pro gun Democrats over anti gun Republicans!

    Do they not see through the election year pandering of the blue dogs? Are they unaware of their Republican challengers, many of them having stellar pro gun records in state legislatures? Can they really say with a straight face that dingy Harry is just as pro gun as Sharon Angle? Do they understand that even if the blue dog is sincerely pro gun, it is totally worthless because he will be preserving the anti gun majority who control the leadership positions, chairmanships, and Rules Committee? Surely, these veteran politicos are aware of the political dynamic of the 2010 elections and the legislative process. They simply care about their own self preservation and political clout on the Hill, even at the expense of the second amendment.

    The NRA knows that electing a Republican majority would be the best way to preserve the second amendment and protect gun rights. But the end game for the NRA is not the protection of gun rights; it is the preservation of the NRA. They have wagered that by playing ball with the Democrats, the NRA will project a more bi-partisan image and thus obtain some clout with the real power brokers. They will be able to obtain such favors as exceptions from the unconstitutional Disclose Act.

    I understand exactly what these political hacks are thinking. It is kind of the same approach that AIPAC has taken when advocating for specific foreign policy positions. They fear that if they support the Republican’s authentic pro-Israel stances (like moving the embassy to Jerusalem or cutting off all aid to the PLO terrorists), the Democrats cannot and will not support it. The end result would be that AIPAC would lose clout with the Democrats and be marginalized in terms of their record of success and effectiveness. They will therefore oppose measures that help Israel (and by extension, America) in order to promote and preserve their own influence on Capitol Hill. The NRA is no different.

    This is exactly what is motivating the NRA to endorse incumbent Democrats who sport a marginally pro gun record. They get to brag about a bi-partisan influence, while incentivizing Democrats to cut them deals. What they don’t realize is that these Democrats are part of a radical left majority that despises gun rights. The Democrat leadership will give these blue dogs a hall pass to vote against them on gun issues, but there is a major catch. Leadership will fail to bring up any meaningful gun legislation during their tenure as majority party in congress. Think about it, how many substantive roll call votes have been taken on gun issues during the 111th congress? Three? Four? So now, these blue dogs get to promote their “three gun votes to know where” and the NRA will support them over a Republican who has fought for gun rights in a substantive and proactive way during their entire career.

    Even though the NRA gets most of their support from conservative Republicans and its success has invariably been linked to the conservative movement, they are now divorcing themselves from us. Well, we should reciprocate the favor and pledge not one dime for these frauds. Gun Owners of America is the real pro second amendment organization in this country! They will protect the second amendment along with every amendment by electing a conservative majority.
    Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative
     
  2. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    Based on what I have already seen I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of this article.
     
  3. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    The NRA should be basing their ratings and support ONLY on the Second Amendment.

    If that means supporting a pro-gun Democrat over an anti-gun Republican, so be it. Because that's how it should work. If the Republican candidate doesn't like it, they've only got themselves to blame.

    The simple fact is... NONE of the anti-gun laws that have passed in congress would have done so without the support of some Republicans. If the GOP had adopted a strictly pro-gun stance, and had been better friends to gun owners, none of that horsecrap would have passed. So I'm not going to shed any tears if some anti-gun RINOs get voted out. Good riddance.

    Also, I'd still like a straight answer from the NRA why they 'upgraded' Reid, with his 43:1 anti-gun record, from an F to a clearly undeserved B rating, giving Reid an unfair shot at reelection over an opponent with an A rating. BTW, his opponent has now hit the 50% mark in the polls. So the argument that the NRA backs only those who are "electable" does not apply in this case.
     
  4. highflyer

    highflyer TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,474
    So many try to say that party doesn't matter. It does. Parties stand for something. When the Democrats vote for their leaders they pick the most liberal they can possibly elect. You can't get more left than Nancy Pelosi from San Francisco, the woman selected by the entire Democratic Congress to lead them, or our most radical president Obama. Same thing when they select Supreme Court Justices. They pick the most far left radical judges then can with the very deliberate purpose of twisting the clear meaning of the constitution to fit their own far left world view. Just shows you the NRA is more interested in politics than protecting our constitutional right to own guns.
     
  5. R.Kipling

    R.Kipling Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,765
    Democrats, as far back as I can remember, including resent D-rats like John Kerry, Bill & Hillary Clinton, Jon Edwards, Harry Read, Henny Stoyer and Dead Ted have all made great issue of the fact that they really don't need the Senate or the House to attack the 2nd Amendment, JUST THE SUPREME COURT!

    If you can't see that Sotomayor and Kagan are the action within those words, then I suggest that you start looking for a Yeti cooler big enough to bury all your guns. You who think that the NRA should be politically blind will be carrying National FOID cards, and paying huge taxes (AKA user fees) on every gun 0 and his gang let you keep.

    You can do your first calculation by dividing the number of gun owners by the annual cost of cash-strapped government prison's. That will be the first, not last fee imposed. Their initial effort will be to extend and impose Class-3 type fees on all guns, it's a natural stepping stone that is a short hop in present administrative law.

    SCI and DCS would never be so politically foolish. The NRA is being Rope-a-Doped and you aren't even feeling the breeze. Why do you think that there has been no effort to revive the Assault Weapon's Act? They know that it's too politically costly to have an open fight. Stacking the SCOTUS is much easier for them, and is much more their Sociopath, duplicitous style. The Elites smug you to death, not mug you.

    I am a 42 year NRA member that has been trying to get the NRA to give me an honest answer all year. Letter after letter have gone completely unanswered, because the Elites at the NRA know that conflict is job security. They can go hunting in Africa all year on our tab, but can't answer a letter?

    I renewed my SCI, GOA and recently joined the DSC but the NRA and ILA have already spent my last dollar. November my membership expires and it is a year too late as far as I can see.

    I hope that you NRA sycophants are right, and I'm wrong, but I've bought my Yeti just in case. If I'm right all we've done is given the congress back to new (our) pirates. If you're wrong, our heritage will be castrated.

    Kip
     
  6. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    So you're saying the NRA should be supporting those Republicans who are anti-gun?
     
  7. Joe Potosky

    Joe Potosky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,484
    <object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XIA5wEC-eu8&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XIA5wEC-eu8&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>
     
  8. Barrelbulge(Fl)

    Barrelbulge(Fl) Banned User Banned TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    11,666
    Location:
    West Central Florida
    Ireceived my NRA membership bill this week. I sent it back and wrote will not renew due to your political agenda I will join Gun owners of America. Bulge.
     
  9. Gary Waalkes

    Gary Waalkes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,398
    To inject another view of how the NRA grades and why certain democrat candidates are endorsed over the Republican, you should go to the NRA website (http://www.nrapvf.org/) and read it for yourself. They actually explain why a Democrat incumbent gets the endorsement over a well rated Republican challenger (click on the words "why we endorse this candidate"). There is a lot of data on that site, information on all the races, congress, senate, governor, state offices, state legislature, etc. If you have not visited this site, try it - it is worth a look.

    Simply put, the NRA stands with those who have stood for us gun owners. If you don't follow that policy, you will not have influence. You cannot go to someone's office and tell them the NRA needs their vote and then turn on them in the general election and endorse the other guy. Like I said, take the candidates listed by wire guy and look at the NRA web site and then decide if the NRA is giving its members a raw deal.

    In the West Virginia congressional race, the D gets the nod because the D has a voting record supporting gun owners and the R only answered a poll. (Stand with those who stood with you.)

    In Indiana - the D gets the nod for senate over republican Dan Coats because Coats is NOT a pro-gunner and the other guy is. Also look at who is being endoresed there for Congress. The NRA site is a great site. Lots of information.

    Here in Delaware, the establishment favorite for Senate was Republican Mike Castle. He got beat in the primary and now I believe the democrats will win that open Senate seat despite the fact that Coons is an anti gunner and fact the NRA is endorsing O'Donnell. If Castle had won the primary, he would be the next senator from Delaware and he is a Republican. But guess what - he was never a gun supporter so even though there would have been another R, he would not support us - he had a long history of non-support. (for the record, I am supporting and voting for O'Donnell and if Castle had won the primary, I would have supported him as he would still have been better on guns than the democrat Coons).

    The problem here is not an NRA endoresment, it is the fact that nearly 50% of eligible voters cannot be bothered. It is the fact that only a fraction of the gun owners actually belong to any pro-gun group - this fact alone does not help the cause. example: this site is full of shotgun shooters and they don't really care about right to carry and they don't like ARs (like Zumbo).

    The NRA is not helping anti-gun dems as stated in the Subject line.
     
  10. sliverbulletexpress

    sliverbulletexpress TS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    2,645
    Gary the facts probably won't make a difference to those well known to hate the NRA. I hope they enjoy their guns while they boycott the NRA, the rest of us will carry the water for them.
     
  11. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    <i>"The NRA is not helping anti-gun dems as stated in the Subject line. "</i>

    Well, except when the NRA changed the rating for John Reid from an F to a B.

    Apparently all an F rated anti-gunner with a 43:1 vote against guns has to do is vote money for an NRA range and all is forgiven.
     
  12. timberfaller

    timberfaller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,946
    Location:
    Eastern Washington
    Here's a novel idea, instead of worrying about the NRA and who they are throwing their name behind. CALL or Write your reps, because that is where you have any hope of making a difference. Other states aren't going to listen to you anyway.

    Ask for their stand on gun rights, if they can't or won't give you an answer, tell them you will not support them or vote for them and WILL activily campaign to tell other not to also.

    Vote issue's not party or gender!

    I've only been stabbed in the back by Demorats, Tom Foley, Jay Inslee to name a few. We(the people) sent them packing when they refused to vote the way they were TOLD!

    They both campaigned on Gun Rights, but once in office they became brown nosers for their party..
     
  13. WS-1

    WS-1 Banned User Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3,885
    I strongly believe that there are democrat party incumbents who lie about their deeply held feelings about the 2nd Amendment. I believe, though they have voted in favor of measures directly related to the 2nd Amendment, that they will always vote the party line on issues which indirectly affect the 2nd Amendment. The one glaring example would be that of Harry Reid voting for Sotomayor and Kagan.

    These are difficult times. One set of freedoms which used to stand alone, is now inextricably intertwined with another set of freedoms. Candidates have found that they can hide their darkest agendas in the shadows of our National icons. "Apple pie and Mom" still make us blind to the clever deceits of devious men. Just because a politician says something is "so" doesn't make it "so." Now, more than ever before, we have to scrutinize every nuance, until we know beyond doubt that our conclusions are correct. Because of that, I humbly request that the NRA indefinitely suspend its policy of endorsing
    incumbents solely on the grounds that they support the second amendment. I further humbly request that the NRA establishes a weighted vetting process which will help to dramatically reduce the number of elected officials who, like Harry Reid, are artful at walking both sides of the street.

    I have coined a new word. It is an acronym. "SASINO"-A Sasino is a "Second Amendment Supporter In Name Only." A Sasino hides behind the 2nd Amendment and votes on other issues that hurt the 2nd Amendment.

    The NRA is a huge, vibrant well funded organization. It can afford to dedicate more of its legislative time to measuring the true merits of the candidates, not just the easy ones. I've said it before and I'll say it again: "The only thing worse than political apathy is political expediency."

    Members of the NRA have lost respect for it and that is a shame. The trend can be reversed. Truly vetting candidates would be a good place to start.

    Kit Thomas
     
  14. Voolfie

    Voolfie Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Wilmington, DE
    While it has been said a couple of times, let it be repeated until even the thickest skulls have been penetrated:

    The NRA will support the candidate who has best supported - or (in the absence of a record) who they believe will best support - the second amendment, REGARDLESS OF PARTY.

    The NRA has no party affiliation. Once again...they will support the candidate that, in their opinion, will most support the second amendment.

    An argument can be made that individual Democratic politicians will support their party before they support the NRA when it comes to pending legislation...BUT...as has been pointed out above, the Republican Party is ONLY friendly to gun owners because the NRA threatens them with the stick.

    To renounce your NRA membership because they support individual Democrats is nothing short of MORONIC. The Gun Owners of America is a joke compared to the NRA.

    ONLY the NRA can navigate the Byzantine political back-channels in such a way as to maintain the right to keep and bear arms. The GOA - if it were in the NRA's position - would get labeled as "lunatic" and steamrolled by the collectivists in the government so fast your head would spin.

    Sorry to break it to you absolutists, but standing on principle is a quick trip to irrelevancy - and the line to hand in your guns.

    Is the NRA perfect? Hell, no. They tried to get the Heller case quashed before it could go to SCOTUS because they feared losing. But without them, you'd have to ask your local sheriff for permission to pick up your trap gun and take it to the range - between the hours of 1100 and 1600 only.

    No other gun rights organization is fit to even look them in the eye.

    If you're pissed at the NRA, you've got two choices: get over it...or hand in your guns. And yes, those are your *only* two choices.

    JOHN
     
  15. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    <i>"The NRA will support the candidate who has best supported - or (in the absence of a record) who they believe will best support - the second amendment, REGARDLESS OF PARTY."</i>

    Reid?

    Seriously?
     
  16. Roy Young

    Roy Young TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7
    Maybe it's time for the NRA to get out of the indorsement business.
     
  17. dirk

    dirk Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    127
    Wireguy, you list Debbie Halvorson, IL as an anti-gun proponent when in fact she is a supporter of the second amendment and gun rights. I can't speak for the others on the list, but Halvorson did not just jump on the NRA pro-gun bandwagon as others have.
     
  18. grnberetcj

    grnberetcj Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,680
    Our state's last "democrat governor" was very pro gun. She signed a law that protected existing gun clubs from encroachment/nuisance law suits and other right to carry laws for retired police officer's.

    Gary is correct in that our republican congressman was no friend of our 2nd Amendment Rights and he voted with the dem's more often than not.

    Yes, the NRA should get out of the "endorsement" game.

    Curt
     
  19. highflyer

    highflyer TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,474
    I will never vote for a Democrat so it doesn't affect me one way or the other. Party affiliation means something and tells me all I need to know about a person. I am not tied to the Republican Party but I am very conservative. The Democratic Party is socialist to the core and I would never vote for anyone wanting to be a member of that socialist party.
     
  20. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    The title of this thread is misleading. Other than the aberration of Reid, who is clearly a hard core anti-gunner that the NRA is playing footsy with, the NRA is supporting INDIVIDUAL Democrats who are pro-gun.

    And that's how it should be. Support the pro0gunners regardless of party affiliation. Do not compromise the Second Amendment.

    I would prefer the NRA to support Republicans, BUT NOT AT THE PRICE OF SUPPORTING ANTI-GUN REPUBLICANS.

    Frankly, anti-gun Republicans have done more damage to the Second Amendment than anti-gun Democrats. Sure, the liberals and socialists are the ones introducing the anti-gun bills. But, there is not one single anti-gun bill that would have passed congress if every Republican voted against it. Go take a look at the votes in past gun bans and other anti-gun bills and you'll clearly see that the Republicans had a major role in the passing of these bills. Our supposed friends have been backstabbing gunowners for a long time.

    Have I ever voted for a pro-gun Dem over an anti-gun Republican? Only once, many years ago. This situation has not occurred again on my ballot. But, we've had plenty of anti-gun Republicans running against anti-gun Democrats. In most cases I then vote third party to excise the cancer from the GOP.

    But back to the NRA. I have criticized the NRA hard for their blatantly stupid and improper "upgrading" of John Reid from an F rating to a B rating. This should never have happened. Period. There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for this outrage.

    Conversely, the NRA is doing the proper thing by not automatically and blindly supporting weak sister and anti-gun Republicans when there is a pro-gun Democrat to support. I do not like that a Democrat is getting the nod, but that is not the fault of the NRA. It is the fault of the Republican in question. Blame needs to be put on the anti-gun Republican, not the NRA.

    Some of you seem to think I'm bashing the NRA. In fact, I criticize the NRA when they err. And I praise the NRA when they act properly.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.