TexasCHLforum.com

magillapd wrote:The NRA does not get people elected, nor does any other organization.

We most certainly do! The highest profile NRA victories in recent elections was Gore and Kerry. The NRA absolutely did give Bush the victory. Our work at the local level has made the difference in many thousand of state and local elections as well.

magillapd wrote:No candidate should EVER be elected based on one single issue. What a voter needs to do is look at the candidate’s record, platform, and endorsements. With that, make an informed decision on who to vote for.

I respectfully disagree strongly with this premise. Thankfully, most NRA members do also, otherwise we would not be the largest and most effective civil rights organization in the country. I'm not saying issues other than guns are not important, but I am saying a candidate's stand on guns is a litmus test. If they are wrong on guns, there's no reason for me to look any further. If both candidates support my right to own and use guns, then I can and do look further.

Chas.

Perhaps in the future we can ignore the anti-NRA propaganda fostered by GOA.

Chas.

atticus wrote:To sum up, it appears you are willing to support Reid. I am not.

I don't support Reid, I live in Texas. If you don't live in Nevada then you can't support him either. This thread was started to blast the NRA for endorsing Reid's reelection, but the NRA hasn't done that. My comments have been directed to the political reality in the Senate and to the basis of the NRA's power in Washington; i.e. supporting those who support us.

Had the GOA and NGRA not falsely claimed we were endorsing Reid, we wouldn't have spent weeks arguing about something that may or may not happen. But this is precisely what GOA and NGRA wanted because the only way they draw attention to their organizations is by blasting the NRA.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

atticus wrote:When confirmation votes came up in the Senate, Harry Reid voted for each of the 4 justices who wrote those amazing dissents in Heller and McDonald. He can be counted on to vote for confirmation of every anti-gun justice candidate that comes up. That's a very bad voting record on guns for senator Reid. One more non-constitutionalist on the Supreme Court, and you can kiss your NRA victories goodbye. Harry Reid's so-called great voting record on guns is not really so good after all when you consider his support of Sotomajor, Kagan, and that ilk. Reid has very little regard for the constitution. The result? The present Washington D.C. government that constantly looks for ways to control the citizens. That will include 2nd amendment issues.

Nevada has a chance to send a better, wiser constitutionalist to the Senate. That's better than keeping Harry Reid. You should not live in fear of the bad democrat Senate majority leaders (Schumer, Durbin, or whoever). They are like poisonous mushrooms in the forest. Get rid of one, another will pop up. Don't live in fear of Schumer, Durbin, or any of those hands. Just send better people to the Senate.

I agree with you about the vote for Kagan.

Do you know the rest of his voting record? Do you know what bills he kept from reaching the Senate floor? Do you know what bills he kept from even being filed?

There are a lot of reasons not to like Harry Reid, but his track record on guns isn't one of them. Trying to paint Reid as anti-gun is unfounded at best. It's right up there with arguing that gun owners would be better off with a new junior Senator from Nevada and Chuck Schumer or Dick Burbin as Senate Majority.

Again, the NRA has not endorsed Reid.

Chas.

Bump -- while waiting for answers.

Chas.

atticus wrote:When confirmation votes came up in the Senate, Harry Reid voted for each of the 4 justices who wrote those amazing dissents in Heller and McDonald. He can be counted on to vote for confirmation of every anti-gun justice candidate that comes up. That's a very bad voting record on guns for senator Reid. One more non-constitutionalist on the Supreme Court, and you can kiss your NRA victories goodbye. Harry Reid's so-called great voting record on guns is not really so good after all when you consider his support of Sotomajor, Kagan, and that ilk. Reid has very little regard for the constitution. The result? The present Washington D.C. government that constantly looks for ways to control the citizens. That will include 2nd amendment issues.

Nevada has a chance to send a better, wiser constitutionalist to the Senate. That's better than keeping Harry Reid. You should not live in fear of the bad democrat Senate majority leaders (Schumer, Durbin, or whoever). They are like poisonous mushrooms in the forest. Get rid of one, another will pop up. Don't live in fear of Schumer, Durbin, or any of those hands. Just send better people to the Senate.

I agree with you about the vote for Kagan.

Do you know the rest of his voting record? Do you know what bills he kept from reaching the Senate floor? Do you know what bills he kept from even being filed?

There are a lot of reasons not to like Harry Reid, but his track record on guns isn't one of them. Trying to paint Reid as anti-gun is unfounded at best. It's right up there with arguing that gun owners would be better off with a new junior Senator from Nevada and Chuck Schumer or Dick Burbin as Senate Majority.

Again, the NRA has not endorsed Reid.

Chas.

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

atticus wrote:++++1 what PWK said. Reid will carry the left-wing water when it comes to ALL democratic nominees for judgeships (Supreme Court, Courts of Appeals, and DIstrict Judges). Reid is odious. He complained of the "smell of tourists." His own foul reek is infinitely worse. Get him out of the senate.

Would you feel this way if a Reid loss put resulted in Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin being Senate Majority Leader?

Chas.

I would not be happy with a Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin Senate Majority Leader, but I'm not happy with Harry Reid as a Senate Majority Leader either. Trading one bad choice for another bad choice doesn't make the situation any worse.

Reid is not a "bad choice" in terms of guns and the Second Amendment. Schumer and Durbin are absolute disasters.

baldeagle wrote:Harry Reid might be pro-gun today, but he hasn't been in the past and he won't be in the future if he can get elected without your support.

When did Reid last cast an anti-gun vote? How many times has be blocked anti-gun bills from coming up in the Senate? How many times did he tell Schumer, Durbin, Feinstein and Boxer "don't even think about [pushing an anti-gun bill]?

baldeagle wrote:If Harry Reid thought he could get a total ban on guns through the Senate without costing him votes back home, he'd do it in a heartbeat.

You may be correct, but that applies to a lot of people in Washington. The point is, the NRA can cost them a lot of votes and probably cause them to lose reelection. That's our power; that's how it works; that's why we are so successful. It would be nice to elect people who go to bed at night a say a prayer thanking God for the Second Amendment, but that's not realistic in any significant numbers. I prefer to have a true friend, I'll settle for someone who's afraid of me.

baldeagle wrote:It's trading a short term "success" for your longterm goals.

Short term!? The NRA has been incredibly successful for decades. Yes, there have been a few losses, but very few and many of those were reversed or heavily modified later.

baldeagle wrote:IMHO the NRA should endorse only those congresscritters are 100%pro gun throughout their careers.

Then we would endorse and support virtually no one; we would have very few friends in Washington; we would have lost every single battle we have won; Al Gore would have been President from 2000 to 2008; Bolton would not have been our UN Ambassador and the UN Small Arms Treaty would have been ratified; there would be no Tiahrt Amendment; Heller would have been lost because Gore would have appointed O'Connor's replacement on the Supreme Court; there would be no National Park carry; firearm provisions would not have been deleted from the Obama-Care bill; and the list goes on and on. Even the beloved Ron Paul voted against gun owners' interests.

baldeagle wrote:If an NRA endorsement is going to be worth anything at all, it needs to be precious and not easily given away.

It is precious and it isn't easily given away. The fact that many people who would like to cast anti-gun votes but vote with us instead is proof that the NRA's endorsement is highly valued and that our opposition is greatly feared. Reid has done everything we have asked of him; you simply don't like him for reasons totally unrelated to guns. I understand that and I don't disagree with you, except to the extent you claim your opposition is based upon Reid's position on guns.

I have to admit that whenever I see people who oppose Reid attacking his alleged "anti-gun" philosophy I have to question their motives. Conservatives have a lot of reasons not to like Harry Reid, but his track record on guns isn't one of them. For many years now, he has done what gun owners have wanted him to do in the Senate. Conservatives who oppose Reid should be willing to admit that he is very good on guns, then state their opposition to him on other grounds. To do otherwise hurts their credibility.

Chas.

atticus wrote:++++1 what PWK said. Reid will carry the left-wing water when it comes to ALL democratic nominees for judgeships (Supreme Court, Courts of Appeals, and DIstrict Judges). Reid is odious. He complained of the "smell of tourists." His own foul reek is infinitely worse. Get him out of the senate.

Would you feel this way if a Reid loss put resulted in Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin being Senate Majority Leader?

Chas.

baldeagle wrote:I think Harry Reid is one of the most despicable politicians alive today. His opponent is a clear conservative who believes in the 2nd amendment. I would be deeply disappointed if the NRA endorses Reid. In fact I would have to rethink having joined the NRA. Reid voted for the Brady bill. He also voted for Clinton's "assault weapon" ban. He has a number of votes that are contrary to the claim that he "has a perfect voting record" on guns. I don't understand the logic at all. If it's simply a fear that the alternative is worse, that's a lousy reason for endorsing. At a minimum the NRA should simply not make an endorsement at all.

The only votes you cite are 16 years old; are you aware of his voting record since then? Also, Harry Reid voted against the Feinstein "assault weapons" ban amendment in 1993 as a new Senator. Yes, he caved in and voted for the Clinton 1994 ban, but he also admitted that was a mistake. (So did Jack Brooks, a Texan with 40 years in the House and a 100% NRA voting record.) Since then Reid has been great, including the blocking of the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban in 2004.

If the NRA followed your philosophy, then it wouldn't exist, the Second Amendment would have be reduced to a meaningless footnote and we would look like England. I understand your feeling about Reid, but the NRA has successfully defended the Second Amendment while no other organization has even made an impact.

Chas.

G26ster wrote:So, we're all "assuming" that the Dems will keep control of the Senate, even with Reid out, and there are enough anti-gun Repubs to ensure that anti-gun legislation passes? Sorry, but I don't think that it's a sure thing that the Dems will keep control of the Senate or the House.

I'm not making any such assumption; I'm just stating the facts. As I also mentioned, Reid has a great voting record on gun issues and if you don't support people who support you, then you have no power.

Chas.

The only thing I can say at this point is that Harry Reid has a perfect voting record on guns and he has kept anti-gun bills from coming up on the Senate. If Reid does not win reelection, the new Senate Majority Leader will be either Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin.

Comment by Chris Cox wrote:“Truthfully, the two individuals vying for majority leader should Harry Reid lose are the two most rabidly anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment senators in Washington, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin,” Cox said. “Does that give concern to NRA members and gun owners all over America? Absolutely, it does.”

Chas.