NRA, GOA Confusion

[johnwilliamson062]

Does Harry Reid retaining his position bolster his allies that are anti-gun to such a degree that it is a net loss for pro-gun? IDK, and truthfully neither does anyone else as it can't be measured, but is anyone thinking about it?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Does Harry Reid retaining his position bolster his allies that are anti-gun to such a degree that it is a net loss for pro-gun?

I don't see how having a pro-RKBA Senate Majority Leader is going to be a bad thing for us - especially since he is basically the only guy in the Democratic leadership who can stop or slow gun control singlehandedly.

There are only two ways there is going to be a Senate Majority Leader who is pro-RKBA - one way is if Reid wins. The other way is if the Democrats lose control of the Senate. The other way is a longshot statistically speaking.

I don't see how Reid being elected is going to bolster his allies that are anti-gun to a degree that it is a net loss. Do you have an example that might illustrate what you were thinking of?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Having progun people of different political ilk is a good thing. Engaging in Byzantine reasoning why this isn't true is a bane of the gun world and probably indicative of folks who want to be conservative more than supporting gun rights. The only true gun rights folks are conservative is the subtext - nah. Baloney.

It's my club - nyah, nyah. If politicians, most of whom have no true convictions, see that issue X works for them - they go for it.

Recall the past administration was for the AWB but engaged in moral sophistry about their support for it. It worked with soccer moms.

Just have people support the RKBA and worry about your other political crap in another dimension. Meaning that increasing RKBA support across parties is the best plan as compared to an ideological loyalty that decreases the base that would support the RKBA.

[johnwilliamson062]

I don't see how Reid being elected is going to bolster his allies that are anti-gun to a degree that it is a net loss. Do you have an example that might illustrate what you were thinking of?

To simply demonstrate my point the following hypothetical examples:
Lets say Harry Reid loses and b/c of it some of the healthcare reforms/repeals are pushed through that Republicans want and everyone is all 'Hurrah the Republicans saved us from the elitist Democratic healthcare socialist mumbo jumbo' or 'The Democrats sold us out and didn't stick with these reforms and all the important stuff was gutted anyways'. The following election Democrats take a beating and the Senate is more pro-gun.
Alternatively the Reid is in power, healthcare reforms continue as already passed, everyone is either saying 'Stupid Republicans are just like the Democrats' OR 'yay, I get free healthcare.' Democrats do better in the next election and the senate is more anti-gun.

Of course, coming from Ohio I realize there are many pro-gun Democrats like Strickland who are good to us, but some generalizations in order to illustrate the point.

[cptnjm]

Thanks all. A good discussion with lots of points I had not considered. Be safe and well.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Lets say Harry Reid loses and b/c of it some of the healthcare reforms/repeals are pushed through that Republicans want

The Republicans have to pick up 10 Senate seats in the November election to be able to even start talking repeal of any law (and they'll still need to Obama to go along with that margin) - to get 10, this means the Republicans must win every toss-up race, every Republican leaning race, and at least one upset in a district that leans Democrat. That is extremely unlikely to happen.

So the Democrats are likely to remain in control of the Senate regardless. The question is which Democrat is going to be Senate Majority Leader.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Well, I think this has wandered too much into the purely political. Interesting points were made but time to close on the high road.

Glenn