TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

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.

We can support candidates in other states. if we wish. We can support them with our words, and dollars. We just can't vote for Nevadans.

Those who only vote for NRA approved candidates will never see the changes that most conservatives or libertarians believe in.
The NRA makes deals (always unwritten mostly unspoken) " you play ball with me and I'll play ball with you" This is how politics and lobbyist work. If Harry Reid plays the game. Then the NRA will keep up its end of the bargain.
Other progun groups will be less likely to to comprimise. GOAL, and the Libertarian party come to mind. Will they be as succsessful. As a libertarian, I am real uncomfortable with the NRA refusing to acknowledge that we even exist. even though our platform and every Libertarian candidate that I met Strongly supports the RKBA. Fortunatly we have free choice, and can vote what reason and logic dictate is the best candidate. We can even withhold giving the NRA money that is used to support candidates we really don't like. But before we do that, is there any organization that we can agree with all the time?

While I wouldn't vote for Harry Reid if he were running dog catcher. Then again, few if any of us here will have that opportunity to vote against him.

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 NRAs mission is to promote our rights as it pertains to gun ownership. They tend to look after incumbants that they can work with. They hardly ever will even rate a Libertarian, even though the the very heart of the the Libertarian is the Freedom right to bear arms.

The NRA would lose a lot of credibility if they took a stance on some issues that aren't gun related. If the only issues that mattered to Nevadians was guns. then Harry Reid might the best choice, he is as very powerful senator, and will continue to be in the unlikely event that Democrats lose the senate. There may be deal that the NRA will support him as long as he is 100% gun rights.

However most gun owners consider other issues of almost equal importance. If his Republican opposition is indeed pro RKBA then most gun owners might consider such factors as the freedom to make our destinies. Fiscal responsibility or Secure borders.


While I really want to see Dirty Harry lose, I believe the NRA is doing the the right thing, but they need to rate his opposition fairly, even if one is a Libertarian or Republican. There can be 20 or 3 A+ rated candidates. The people in Nevada are lucky in one way, neither Senatorial candidate seems to be a gun grabber.