TexasCHLforum.com

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.

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.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: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.

Chuck Schumer may not be our worst choice but I'll bet 'ol Chuck is in pretty tight with worst choice NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. I don't care much for the Dems' agenda but Harry was instrumental in getting a super deluxe shooting facility for Las Vegas.

In conclusion and given our choices for Senate Majority Leader, I say let's root for good 'ol Harry.

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.

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.

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.

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

I can't see endorsing the "lesser of two evils" when a better alternative exists. Take the high road. Endorse the candidate you want to see win!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Reid also voted for Beyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayer and most likely Kagan. All opposed to the right to keep and bear arms. As Heller and McDonald illustrate the battle over the 2nd amendment is fought more in the courts than in the legislatures. I think the NRA is being conveniently myopic here in not looking at the whole picture. A 50/50 senate even in democrat control might not approve Obama's next choice for the SC but a 52/48 or 53/47 in democrat control will approve his next choice. Do the right thing NRA either endorse Reid's opponent or stay neutral.

PWK wrote:Reid also voted for Beyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayer and most likely Kagan. All opposed to the right to keep and bear arms. As Heller and McDonald illustrate the battle over the 2nd amendment is fought more in the courts than in the legislatures. I think the NRA is being conveniently myopic here in not looking at the whole picture. A 50/50 senate even in democrat control might not approve Obama's next choice for the SC but a 52/48 or 53/47 in democrat control will approve his next choice. Do the right thing NRA either endorse Reid's opponent or stay neutral.

Regardless of what they tell you and regardless of which party says it, it is all about re-election. How many times do I have to say this? What is so hard to understand?

Term limits...anybody?