TexasCHLforum.com

nitrogen wrote:The NRA is a gun rights org. It is not a conservative org.

If Harry Reid's guns record is good, it should be enough for a GUN RIGHTS org to endorse him.

I'm assuming Harry Reid is pro health care, pro abortion, pro gay rights, etc. Thats' fine. The NRA shouldn't care. IF his record on pro guns is good, they should endorse him.

I don't want the NRA to stop endorsing people because of other, non-gun related things.

So you have no problem with a supposedly pro-RKBA Senator who voted for two Supreme Court nominees (now Justices) who are decidedly anti-RKBA, to the point that they will vote against RKBA cases despite the precedent-setting Heller and MacDonald decisions?

Those who say Harry Reid is pro-gun are either kidding themselves or don't understand politicians who have no soul (of which Harry Reid is a charter member.)

seamusTX wrote:

atticus wrote:Nevada has a chance to send a better, wiser constitutionalist to the Senate. That's better than keeping Harry Reid.

Do you understand that Sharron Angle would not be the senate majority leader?

This seems to be a common misunderstanding.

- Jim

I can't speak for him, but I definitely understand that. It doesn't change my desire to rid the country of Harry Reid any more than it changes my desire to rid the country of Charles Schumer and Dick Durbin. I'll take my victories where I can find them. Elect enough pro-RKBA politicians to the Senate and the majority leader becomes much less of an issue.

Yes, perhaps I'm a purist, but I gotta tell you, the "better the devil you know" position has gotten us into the current mess, in my opinion. Harry Reid needs to go, and it's looking more and more like he will. And if the Tea Party folks keep kicking the RINOs out of the Republican party and electing true freedom-loving candidates to run against the scoundrels presently serving, we may actually see the light of day some time in the future.

If we keep re-electing the Harry Reids of this government, America has no future, RKBA or not. As it is, we're hanging on by a thread and about to go under. Only a radical transformation can save us.

Besides, booting the Senate Majority Leader out of the Senate has a salutory effect on politicians' respect for the people who vote them into office in the first place.

Personally I would prefer term limits, so seniority would matter much less and loyalty to the people who elected you would matter a great deal more.

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. But when you have an opportunity to remove from office an enemy of freedom, you do it. 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.

Pick people who actually believe in freedom and act like it all the time, not just when it's convenient for them. 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. That's not someone that I think the NRA should support. It's trading a short term "success" for your longterm goals.

IMHO the NRA should endorse only those congresscritters are 100%pro gun throughout their careers. If an NRA endorsement is going to be worth anything at all, it needs to be precious and not easily given away.

seamusTX wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

seamusTX wrote:Perfect. Enemy. Good.

That's precisely the argument I hate most about politics. Let's settle for second best because there's no way we can ever get the best.

Well, when the Republicans held the U.S. House and Senate and the White House in 2001, they abolished all those unconstitutional "gun control" laws and the income tax, didn't they?

There is nowhere to turn. My political sympathies are more libertarian than any other category, but libertarian candidates rarely are elected because they insist on being ideologically pure.

Dogs. Fleas. Pigs. Mud. Adams and Jefferson rolled in it. That's all there is.

- Jim

That is precisely what the problem is. In general, most people will vote for a Republican or a Democrat because they don't think anyone else can win. Yet the reason nobody else wins is because no one will vote for them. It's circular logic, and leads to the present situation where our rights are being stolen faster than we can fight for them.

It's time for a new paradigm.

seamusTX wrote:Try this on for size, Dr. von Braun: Sen. Reid is replaced by a political novice who will be the junior member of the Senate. The Democrats retain a majority (which is a 50:50 bet). And one of the two worst anti-RKBA senior senators currently holding office becomes majority leader.

I'm not signing up for that scenario.

Perfect. Enemy. Good.

- Jim

That's precisely the argument I hate most about politics. Let's settle for second best because there's no way we can ever get the best. I've been hearing that argument all my life, and the country has gone steadily downhill as a result. It's fine if the NRA wants to take that approach, but I will not support it with my dollars. I will support people who seek to radically change the present system and return to the liberty we should have had but don't because we've settled for second best for far too long.

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.

Charles, Red State is reporting that the NRA is "leaning" toward endorsing Harry Reid. http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/07/0 ... arry-reid/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Considering how wrong they were on the so-called "gag order", I wonder if you could comment on this latest claim. I just joined the NRA recently. I would be extremely disappointed if the NRA actually endorsed Harry Reid.