NRA to endorse Harry Reid?

[seamusTX]

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.

The situation is not that simple.

A saint could be elected to Congress. If he was not a member of the Democratic or Republican party, he would be shunted off to an obscure committee where he could never be either the chairman or ranking member.

I give you two examples: Rep. Ron Paul (my representative) who is a Libertarian with an R after his name, and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a for-real socialist.

State legislatures are full of other examples that you have most likely never heard of.

History shows that democratic republics go one of three ways:

• Two-party systems, with a vaguely left-right divide, like the U.S. and Canada
• Multi-party systems that are unstable, like Israel and Italy
• One-party systems that cease to be democracies

I don't make the rules. I don't like the rules. But those are the rules.

- Jim

[G26ster]

Term Limits? That's gonna be a stretch when the only folks that can vote for that are the people who's terms need limiting Kinda like voting to fire yourself.

As for the NRA and Reid, I imagine a non-political organization must do what they believe is right for their "single" issue. But, how in the world is Harry Reid considered pro RKBA by the NRA when he voted for the Brady Bill, Assault Weapons Ban, Gun Free School Zones, Gun Locks, gov't intrusion into gun shows, etc., etc., etc.? Or, has his voting record been incorrectly reported?

[atticus]

++++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.

[seamusTX]

ShootSelfFoot.jpg (4.24 KiB) Viewed 1536 times

- Jim

[Charles L. Cotton]

++++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]

++++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.

[Charles L. Cotton]

++++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.

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]?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[bdickens]

The NRA is a single-issue organization.

[SA-TX]

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.

Hopefully this won't become a lesser of two evils situation. If R's take the Senate (as Dick Morris has been predicting for months and he now predicts a near R sweep of contested seats) and Angle wins, it should be a 2-fer. Even if the majority doesn't change (say it is 48/52 or 49/51) but Reid loses, Schumer/Durbin would have a tough time passing anti-gun legislation because: a) there is probably still a pro-gun majority between R's and a few D's in the Senate and in any event the anti's don't have 60 votes and b) if the House goes R, as many are predicting and the odds seem higher than for the Senate, anti-gun legislation will be dead on arrival there. Additionally, even should Reid win and the D's retain the majority, it isn't a certainty he'll be majority leader considering the change in the make up of the D conference. They will have taken a beating and lost many seats. Will the remaining D's still have confidence in his leadership?

Charles, I agree with you and the NRA. Reid has been very good on guns. Since the NRA is a single-issue group, for good or ill as was discussed during the DISCLOSE debate, the endorsement makes sense. Most voters -- including pro-2A and NRA members -- however, are not so singlular in their focus and I suspect that most will ultimately vote against Reid for the reasons stated by the prior post. After all, Nevadans are electing first and formost a senator, and even his majority leader status hasn't kept Nevada from having the highest unemployment rate in the country.

SA-TX

[texas1234]

If he has a good pro-gun voting record that is what the gun lobby will support. When running an organization that focuses on a single issue even if your personal politics on the macro do not allign with the politician, you have to look at what your organization is focusing on and support politicians or candidates that allign with the stance of your organization.

However with that said its not an easy thing to do and you have to calculate the pros and cons. He may have a great gun record, but he also supported healthcare, and in my opinion healthcare is going to be the backdoor to gun restrictions.

1) The government is mandating an electronic health record.
2) Once they take over that system your health records which currently have a lot of confidentially could be potentially used against you to own a firearm.

Ex. Wife leaves you, you become a little depressed, you go to the your primary care physician and he prescribes you an anti-depressent for 90 days, now its on your electronic health record. Are you fit to own a firearm? In a few years that could be up to a government official to decide. You go down to Academy to purchase a deer rifle but a government official has determined you are ineligble based on your electronic health record and they submit a denial to the NICS system already in place.

I am not saying that will happen but the federal systems set up that are acting independently of each other can very easilty be merged.

If I was NRA I am not sure I could give Harry Reid anything other than a good score as a pro-gun politician but I also do not know who he is up against either. If they have a terrible gun record I would support Harry.

[seamusTX]

Medicare has been in place for 45 years and has not been used to restrict firearms ownership. This kind of theory is out there with the black helicopters and blue helmets.

Sen. Reid's opponent in the Nevada Senate race is Sharron Angle.

However, people need to understand that this is not a race between Harry Reid and Sharron Angle for the Senate seat. Senate influence is all about seniority. Ms. Angle, if elected, would not be the Senate majority leader. She would be a junior senator with no seniority or influence.

It is a contest between Harry Reid and two senior senators with spectacularly hostile anti-RKBA records.

- Jim

[texas1234]

Jim its the infrastructure of the healthcare bill that opens the door for this exact theory. Will it happen maybe not, but it is definately in the open play book for the anti-gun lobby. Same thing with homeowners insurance, there are many companies that will not insure a home with a trampoline in the backyard, and if they do you pay a higher premium.

This is not a black helicopter theory, it is a new venue for the anti-gun lobby, and it is a serious issue.

National Healthcare is going to be a train wreck for gun owners, especially if we dont strip the power from the current Congress and White House this November and in 2012.

[seamusTX]

Temporary or permanent restriction of firearms rights requires a judicial ruling (especially in light of Heller and McDonald). That could be a grand jury, judge sitting in court, or full-blown jury trial. These are public proceedings that have to conform to due process of law and can be appealed.

Under current law, no bureaucrat can restrict rights on his or her own authority. Efforts to use the "no fly" or "terrorist watch" list have failed.

Laws can be changed only by a majority vote of both houses of Congress.

Does anyone think that Senator Charles Schumer or Senator Richard Durbin is going to be a better choice in any respect?

Homeowners insurance has nothing to do with government. If private insurance companies will not issue policies or charge high premiums, that is their decision in the free market.

- Jim

[Mike1951]

Monday, December 21, 2009
Guns could no longer be considered a threat to health under health care reform if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s compromise passes. In all the the deal making and tinkering to win support for the bill, Reid added a provision to prevent the Secretary of Health and Human Services from collecting data on guns and ammunition in households, and using it in any relation to health care. It also bars insurers from taking into account the risks guns might pose to people’s health in setting premiums or offering rebates to people with healthy lifestyles. For instance, if someone were to find people in houses with firearms were more likely to suffer gun injuries, that could not be used to set premiums, sort of like barring the use of pre-existing conditions.

[G26ster]

Medicare has been in place for 45 years and has not been used to restrict firearms ownership. This kind of theory is out there with the black helicopters and blue helmets.

So, the fact that the info below was in the bill, before a compromise, supports your statement? In the last 45 years there has never been a President together with a Congress with super-majority power to do as they pleased either - until now.

Monday, December 21, 2009
Guns could no longer be considered a threat to health under health care reform if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s compromise passes. In all the the deal making and tinkering to win support for the bill, Reid added a provision to prevent the Secretary of Health and Human Services from collecting data on guns and ammunition in households, and using it in any relation to health care. It also bars insurers from taking into account the risks guns might pose to people’s health in setting premiums or offering rebates to people with healthy lifestyles. For instance, if someone were to find people in houses with firearms were more likely to suffer gun injuries, that could not be used to set premiums, sort of like barring the use of pre-existing conditions.


I'd like to know if that compromise actually did pass.