NRA - Never Again

jmortimer · October 7, 2010, 07:08 PM

I'm off the band wagon. I kept supporting the NRA regardless of what they did including the recent backroom deal with obama/reid/pelosi to limit political free speech with a special exemption for the NRA which failed Thank God. With November comming I reached my limit. The article linked from Newsmax dated 10-7-10 entitled "Republicans Riled as NRA Endorses Some Democrat Incumbants" shows how, in my opinion, the NRA is a sell out http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Repu...0/07/id/372960 What a coincidence, I just received a letter from the money grubbers today - My response sent today
Don’t ever expect to get a penny from me and take me off your mailing list. For the NRA to support democrat candidates who will stick their collective heads up obama/reid/pelosi’s arses will harm my Second Amendment Rights. If the Republican is as good as the democrat then support the Republican. Any resources I would have wasted with the NRA will be spent directly with Conservative candidates and State and local groups who support the Second Amendment.

Nnobby45 · October 7, 2010, 07:26 PM

Well, we would have long since lost our gun rights but for the NRA.

And, PART (as in not all) of the org. is Political and politics is a dirty business.

Why would they support Harry Reid, for example?

Because with him as leader of the Senate, no major anti gun bill ever came to the floor, and even if his opponent won with their support, he/she wouldn't have any power to prevent a Charlie Schumer from introducing one bill after another.

That's a sample of why they do it, but I don't like it either. Years back, they supported a Nevada Assembly chairman who was no friend of gun owners because they didn't think his opponent could win and they didn't want to tick him off. Many of us Nevadans were unhappy about that and the NRA heard about it.

You know what they say about politics and sausage.

Don H · October 7, 2010, 07:26 PM

So you're saying that, as a gun-rights organization, that the NRA shouldn't support staunch Second-Amendment supporting Democrats in favor of Republicans who may have a lesser degree of support for the RKBA? That the NRA should support Republicans no matter what their RKBA stance is? Why should the NRA support a particular party rather than the candidate that is more supportive of the RKBA? Isn't the RKBA the focus of the NRA?

jmortimer · October 7, 2010, 07:27 PM

I did not say that - I specifically said that where the candidates are equal don't enable obama/reid/pelosi - if the Republican is a "RHINO" then support the democrat if they are an exception to the rule of being anti-gun. That is what I said. And, actually, the NRA did not endorse reid which surprised me. If both candidates are good on the RKBA then support both, I suppose, but you would still be enabling obama/reid/pelosi

Nnobby45 · October 7, 2010, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Actually, the NRA did not endorse reid which surprised me.

Not this time. They haven't endorsed any one. Seems like they're walking a fine "middle line" so they don't anger Harry too much if he wins and don't anger the NRA members if he does or doesn't.

HotShot.444 · October 7, 2010, 07:36 PM

" Well, we would have long since lost our gun rights but for the NRA. " I'm sure you have citations for this long battle; please quote them. De facto endorsement comes in the fashion of giving Reid the almost maximum a corporation can give to a candidate. LaPierre has his nose firmly planted.

Nnobby45 · October 7, 2010, 07:39 PM

Quote:

So you're saying that, as a gun-rights organization, that the NRA shouldn't support staunch Second-Amendment supporting Democrats in favor of Republicans who may have a lesser degree of support for the RKBA?

Maybe I misunderstood your post, but I hope you aren't suggesting that Harry Reid is pro gun.

He just gets to act like the saviour of our gun rights in a political climate where more gun restrictions aren't popular, anyway--- especially after recent court decisions. A different position wouldn't be popular in a state like Nevada and it wouldn't be wise for the other anti-gun democrats to persue that course at this point, either.

Not exactly seeing a lot of other democrats standing there posing with Sarah Brady these days.

cbrgator · October 7, 2010, 07:51 PM

The NRA is driven by a political issue, not a political party. Not every Republican is pro-gun and conversely, not every Democrat anti-gun. Our mission to expand the RKBA transcends political parties.

To the OP who refuses to support the NRA for endorsing pro-gun Democrats: It sounds like Republican politics is more important to you than gun rights. If a Republican Congress is more important to you then a pro-gun Congress, so be it.

You have the right to feel as you do, but please understand that the NRA is not tethered to the Republicans. They are tethered to supporters of RKBA. I think your distaste is unfounded

jmortimer · October 7, 2010, 08:05 PM

My agenda is to promote the RKBA which is a pillar of Conservatism. If there is a democrat who goes against obama/reid/pelosi on the RKBA then that is better than nothing but they still cacus with reid/pelosi and enable obama/reid/pelosi so that hurts the RKBA by definition. So I'm just keeping it real and not playing P.C. games.

cbrgator · October 7, 2010, 08:17 PM

Quote:

My agenda is to promote the RKBA which is a pillar of Conservatism. If there is a democrat who goes against obama/reid/pelosi on the RKBA then that is better than nothing but they still cacus with reid/pelosi and enable obama/reid/pelosi so that hurts the RKBA by definition. So I'm just keeping it real and not playing P.C. games.

You prove my point that it is more important for you to have Republicans than pro-gun representatives. When Eric Holder declared an intention to reinstate the AWB, 65 DEMOCRATS in the House of Representatives sent a letter to President Obama warning against it and that they would not have their support.

So for you, even if Democrats support gun rights, that is not good enough. Your priority is Republican, not RKBA.

The NRA does not share that outlook. They prioritize gun rights over partisanship and are not a Republican organization.

jmortimer · October 7, 2010, 08:43 PM

Let's be real - I'm not impressed that 25% of democrats in congress supported the RKBA when it is at least 90% pro RKBA on the Republican side. Why play p.C. pretend - we have a two party system and there are big differences on the RKBA.

**Tom Servo** · October 7, 2010, 08:52 PM

Quote:

So I'm just keeping it real and not playing P.C. games.

I keep it real by busting whack rhymes.

I'm going to invent a time machine. Not to go meet Ezra Pound. Not to witness the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains. No, I'm going to use it for one purpose: to drag some of the current generation by the collar back to 1993 to see how things were back then.

If it weren't for the NRA, the Assault Weapons Ban would not have had a sunset provision. It would be permanent, and there'd be a rider every year, adding just about every semiautomatic rifle in existence to the ban list.

The NICS system would keep your information permanently, and it would have become a national registry. Concealed carry legislation in most states would not have seen fruition.

Forget gun shows--they'd be regulated out of business. In fact, forget buying handguns at all, since lawsuits would have driven most American manufacturers to either close their doors or severely limit sales to the public.

Hunting? Good luck, as the EPA would have banned the use of all lead ammunition. OSHA would have succeeded in reclassifying gunpowder as a dangerous explosive several years back (google 1910.109).

These things weren't stopped by somebody's local chest-pounding coffee klatch. They were stopped by the NRA.

Quote:

Not every Republican is pro-gun and conversely, not every Democrat anti-gun. Our mission to expand the RKBA transcends political parties.

Well put. I shoot with a professional poet who happens to be an advocate for repealing the death penalty. He's also a die-hard supporter of the RKBA, and he puts his money (and effort) where his mouth is. I didn't ask who he voted for in 2008, but should I ostracize him because he's not "with the program?"

Some would be very surprised how many of us don't hew all that closely to the entire "conservative" checklist on many things. Does that mean we're not "worthy" somehow?

We stand to gain quite a bit by making the RKBA a universal cause, and likewise, we stand to lose by making it an insular partisian one.

**Mike Irwin** · October 7, 2010, 08:54 PM

Anyone who thinks that the National Rifle Association is, or should be, a tool of the Republican Party, ESPECIALLY the Republican Party, is a fool.

An NRA that is tightly tied to one political party is the LAST thing gun owners should want, expect, or demand.

NRA should, and is, support those members of Congress who support the Second Amendment.

THAT'S IT.

NRA is NOT, and should NOT be, about reducing the overall scope of government.

NRA is NOT, and should NOT be, about abortion rights/pro life.

NRA is NOT, and should NOT be, about a National Energy Policy.

NRA IS about, and SHOULD BE about, doing everything it can to preserve, protect, and defend the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans and that should include supporting politicians who support the Second Amendment no matter what their political affiliation.

Simply put, anyone who has a problem with that isn't a friend of gun owners.

Now, by STRICT definition I should close this thread as being too political in nature, as TFL no longer does political threads.

However, I think what is being discussed here, while political in nature, is of such a nature that the thread should remain open for discussion AS LONG AS the topic of discussion remains NRA's political activities.

If it strays off into a general political discussion, or worse, a general political rant, the thread will be closed and sanctions levied.

So THINK about what you're posting before you post it.

jmortimer · October 7, 2010, 09:10 PM

What I learned from this "exercise" is that I am excited about joining Gun Owners of America. Good riddance to the NRA. Hello Gun Owners of America.

ZeroJunk · October 7, 2010, 09:17 PM

So, the NRA has supported some individual candidates that you don't agree with. And, they got an exemption on legislation that they likely couldn't stop anyway.

But, overall over the last 20 or 30 years, what do you think the NRA could have done in the enviornment they were working in that they have not done. Seems to me like in many parts of the country gun owners are better off now than most of my lifetime.

jmortimer · October 7, 2010, 09:25 PM

Most all the good things have been done on a State Level as the maps from Gun Nuttery deomstrate http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php

Sarge · October 7, 2010, 09:37 PM

I had a list of now forgotton endorsements that finished me with NRA years ago... people I wouldn't want in office under any circumstance. I'll grant you the fact that NRA has done some good things. I've got no truck with folks who choose to be members.

Simply stated, sending the NRA a check is not the oly way to protect your rights.

I'd wager that the subversives who now run your government and write your laws (not to mention their Supreme Court appointments and Gov't agency regulatory restrictions) were voted into office with the help of people who send that check to NRA every year.

You can send all the checks you want and if you don't VOTE like you mean to keep it, the Second is still in jeopardy.

**JohnKSa** · October 7, 2010, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Don’t ever expect to get a penny from me and take me off your mailing list. For the NRA to support democrat candidates...

NRA is a single issue organization and endorsements from the NRA are based on that single issue.

They endorse candidates that best support that single issue regardless of other political views.

What's more they don't try to keep it a secret.

If you are not a single issue voter then you shouldn't base your vote exclusively on the endorsements of a single issue organization.

Quote:

What I learned from this "exercise" is that I am excited about joining Gun Owners of America.

Are you saying that GOA considers other issues besides RKBA stance when it endorses a candidate?

jmortimer · October 7, 2010, 10:22 PM

Let's just say GOA is more in line with what I believe a pro-Second Amendment organization should be.

**JohnKSa** · October 7, 2010, 10:35 PM

That's reasonable.

Much more reasonable than becoming openly irate at a single issue organization for actually BEING a single issue organization as they publicly claim to be.

**Shane Tuttle** · October 7, 2010, 10:44 PM

Best thing I can say at this time is good luck in your right to excercise the freedom to choose whichever organization you want, jmortimer. Obviously, all of the good things (which amount to the size of Mt. Everest compared to GOA's mole hill in my backyard) the NRA has accomplished is a moot point to you over something like you state.

I really wonder what peoples' thinking would be if the NRA didn't so some heavy footwork to help out in the Heller case. I really think some people become so callused and complacent on the accomplishments the NRA has done that the nitpick issues are blown out of proportion.

DG45 · October 7, 2010, 11:03 PM

The NRA has been the most effective organization of its type ever at defending its turf. This has worked in the favor of all who care about RKBA.

There are always going to be some people who don't understand (or like) the fact that NRA reaches out to all political spectrums to achieve that end. I consider these people naive. While there certainly is a faction within the Democratic party that would like to take away your gun rights, there are still a lot of Democrats who don't. There are also other political factions who consider themselves neither Democrats nor Republicans, but whose support we gunowners need, be they Conservatives or Liberals or Liberterians or Tea Party supporters or whatever.

Personally, I consider myself a conservative and as such, I generally vote Republican, but I would be the first to say it is the business of the Republican Party to elect Republicans; not the business of the NRA.

The business of the NRA is to work on behalf of its membership (and just incidentally, all other Americans who believe in Constitutional government) to protect and defend the Constitutional right of Americans to keep and bear arms, regardless which political party is in power.

I fail to see how any intelligent person thinks the NRA could achieve the goals we want it to achieve by associating itself only with the Republican Party - which at the moment controls only a minority of Congressional delegates.

jmortimer · October 7, 2010, 11:17 PM

One last thing, the NRA was not necessarily supporting the best candidate but blindly supporting the incumbent even if the opponent was equally or even better qualified which was the gist of the article I linked and why some us are not happy. The NRAs disgraceful support of the Disclosure Act was beyond the pale. How can anyone say "I support the Second Amend" and ignore the First Amendment even if the NRA made a backroom deal with the devil and got a special exemption for themselves from the Disclosure Act. There will not be a Second Amendment if the First Amendment is gutted with the help of the NRA. That ain't right.

**Mike Irwin** · October 7, 2010, 11:21 PM

From what I've been able to tell, over the past 5 or 10 years, GOA seems to have spent the vast majority of its money bitching about NRA in an effort to siphon off members, and putting precious little of it to work protecting our rights.

"Most all the good things have been done on a State Level as the maps from Gun Nuttery deomstrate http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php"

Very odd that you'd put that map up there, apparently as some means of casting aspersions at NRA.

Here's the truth of the matter. NRA poured an amazing amount of time, effort, and money into those states over the years in an effort to get shall issue laws passed, FAR more than any other organization could even hope to. And it continues to pour time, effort, and money into the states when needed.

NRA isn't only active at the Federal level - it's also instrumental in funding, coordinating, and supporting pro-rights activities at the state and local levels, as well.

**Frank Ettin** · October 7, 2010, 11:31 PM

Nonetheless, the NRA is very politically astute, and there are excellent political reasons to support an incumbent who is a strong supporter of the RKBA rather than someone new.

An incumbent will have more seniority, a better shot at better committee appointments, and he will already know his way around. Someone who supports the RKBA and who has been in his office a while will generally be able to more effectively promote our RKBA interests than a freshman.

That's just a fact of political life. An incumbent who is good on your issue will be a better choice than someone new, at least on your issue.

It sounds to me like the NRA has endorsed candidates it has reasonably concluded are most likely to be the most effective at promoting the RKBA. That's what I, as a Benefactor Life Member, expect them to do.

October 7, 2010, 07:08 PM	#1
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	NRA - Never Again I'm off the band wagon. I kept supporting the NRA regardless of what they did including the recent backroom deal with obama/reid/pelosi to limit political free speech with a special exemption for the NRA which failed Thank God. With November comming I reached my limit. The article linked from Newsmax dated 10-7-10 entitled "Republicans Riled as NRA Endorses Some Democrat Incumbants" shows how, in my opinion, the NRA is a sell out http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Repu...0/07/id/372960 What a coincidence, I just received a letter from the money grubbers today - My response sent today Don’t ever expect to get a penny from me and take me off your mailing list. For the NRA to support democrat candidates who will stick their collective heads up obama/reid/pelosi’s arses will harm my Second Amendment Rights. If the Republican is as good as the democrat then support the Republican. Any resources I would have wasted with the NRA will be spent directly with Conservative candidates and State and local groups who support the Second Amendment.

October 7, 2010, 07:26 PM	#3
Don H Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2000 Location: SLC,Utah Posts: 2,704	So you're saying that, as a gun-rights organization, that the NRA shouldn't support staunch Second-Amendment supporting Democrats in favor of Republicans who may have a lesser degree of support for the RKBA? That the NRA should support Republicans no matter what their RKBA stance is? Why should the NRA support a particular party rather than the candidate that is more supportive of the RKBA? Isn't the RKBA the focus of the NRA? __________________ Don http://www.utahconcealedcarry.com/forum/

October 7, 2010, 07:27 PM	#4
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	I did not say that - I specifically said that where the candidates are equal don't enable obama/reid/pelosi - if the Republican is a "RHINO" then support the democrat if they are an exception to the rule of being anti-gun. That is what I said. And, actually, the NRA did not endorse reid which surprised me. If both candidates are good on the RKBA then support both, I suppose, but you would still be enabling obama/reid/pelosi Last edited by jmortimer; October 7, 2010 at 07:34 PM.

October 7, 2010, 07:36 PM	#6
HotShot.444 Junior member Join Date: September 21, 2010 Posts: 112	Nnobby45 " Well, we would have long since lost our gun rights but for the NRA. " I'm sure you have citations for this long battle; please quote them. De facto endorsement comes in the fashion of giving Reid the almost maximum a corporation can give to a candidate. LaPierre has his nose firmly planted.

October 7, 2010, 08:54 PM	#13
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,389	Anyone who thinks that the National Rifle Association is, or should be, a tool of the Republican Party, ESPECIALLY the Republican Party, is a fool. An NRA that is tightly tied to one political party is the LAST thing gun owners should want, expect, or demand. NRA should, and is, support those members of Congress who support the Second Amendment. THAT'S IT. NRA is NOT, and should NOT be, about reducing the overall scope of government. NRA is NOT, and should NOT be, about abortion rights/pro life. NRA is NOT, and should NOT be, about a National Energy Policy. NRA IS about, and SHOULD BE about, doing everything it can to preserve, protect, and defend the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans and that should include supporting politicians who support the Second Amendment no matter what their political affiliation. Simply put, anyone who has a problem with that isn't a friend of gun owners. Now, by STRICT definition I should close this thread as being too political in nature, as TFL no longer does political threads. However, I think what is being discussed here, while political in nature, is of such a nature that the thread should remain open for discussion AS LONG AS the topic of discussion remains NRA's political activities. If it strays off into a general political discussion, or worse, a general political rant, the thread will be closed and sanctions levied. So THINK about what you're posting before you post it. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

October 7, 2010, 07:26 PM	#2
Nnobby45 Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2004 Posts: 3,150	Well, we would have long since lost our gun rights but for the NRA. And, PART (as in not all) of the org. is Political and politics is a dirty business. Why would they support Harry Reid, for example? Because with him as leader of the Senate, no major anti gun bill ever came to the floor, and even if his opponent won with their support, he/she wouldn't have any power to prevent a Charlie Schumer from introducing one bill after another. That's a sample of why they do it, but I don't like it either. Years back, they supported a Nevada Assembly chairman who was no friend of gun owners because they didn't think his opponent could win and they didn't want to tick him off. Many of us Nevadans were unhappy about that and the NRA heard about it. You know what they say about politics and sausage.

October 7, 2010, 07:51 PM	#8
cbrgator Senior Member Join Date: June 1, 2009 Posts: 135	The NRA is driven by a political issue, not a political party. Not every Republican is pro-gun and conversely, not every Democrat anti-gun. Our mission to expand the RKBA transcends political parties. To the OP who refuses to support the NRA for endorsing pro-gun Democrats: It sounds like Republican politics is more important to you than gun rights. If a Republican Congress is more important to you then a pro-gun Congress, so be it. You have the right to feel as you do, but please understand that the NRA is not tethered to the Republicans. They are tethered to supporters of RKBA. I think your distaste is unfounded

October 7, 2010, 08:05 PM	#9
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	My agenda is to promote the RKBA which is a pillar of Conservatism. If there is a democrat who goes against obama/reid/pelosi on the RKBA then that is better than nothing but they still cacus with reid/pelosi and enable obama/reid/pelosi so that hurts the RKBA by definition. So I'm just keeping it real and not playing P.C. games.

October 7, 2010, 08:43 PM	#11
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	Let's be real - I'm not impressed that 25% of democrats in congress supported the RKBA when it is at least 90% pro RKBA on the Republican side. Why play p.C. pretend - we have a two party system and there are big differences on the RKBA.

October 7, 2010, 09:10 PM	#14
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	What I learned from this "exercise" is that I am excited about joining Gun Owners of America. Good riddance to the NRA. Hello Gun Owners of America.

October 7, 2010, 09:17 PM	#15
ZeroJunk Senior Member Join Date: August 14, 2006 Location: Browns Summit NC Posts: 2,589	So, the NRA has supported some individual candidates that you don't agree with. And, they got an exemption on legislation that they likely couldn't stop anyway. But, overall over the last 20 or 30 years, what do you think the NRA could have done in the enviornment they were working in that they have not done. Seems to me like in many parts of the country gun owners are better off now than most of my lifetime.

October 7, 2010, 09:25 PM	#16
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	Most all the good things have been done on a State Level as the maps from Gun Nuttery deomstrate http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php

October 7, 2010, 09:37 PM	#17
Sarge Senior Member Join Date: May 12, 2002 Location: MO Posts: 5,457	I had a list of now forgotton endorsements that finished me with NRA years ago... people I wouldn't want in office under any circumstance. I'll grant you the fact that NRA has done some good things. I've got no truck with folks who choose to be members. Simply stated, sending the NRA a check is not the oly way to protect your rights. I'd wager that the subversives who now run your government and write your laws (not to mention their Supreme Court appointments and Gov't agency regulatory restrictions) were voted into office with the help of people who send that check to NRA every year. You can send all the checks you want and if you don't VOTE like you mean to keep it, the Second is still in jeopardy. __________________ People were smarter before the Internet, or imbeciles were harder to notice.

October 7, 2010, 10:22 PM	#19
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	Let's just say GOA is more in line with what I believe a pro-Second Amendment organization should be.

October 7, 2010, 10:35 PM	#20
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 24,986	That's reasonable. Much more reasonable than becoming openly irate at a single issue organization for actually BEING a single issue organization as they publicly claim to be. __________________ Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?

October 7, 2010, 10:44 PM	#21
Shane Tuttle Staff Join Date: November 28, 2005 Location: Montana Posts: 9,443	Best thing I can say at this time is good luck in your right to excercise the freedom to choose whichever organization you want, jmortimer. Obviously, all of the good things (which amount to the size of Mt. Everest compared to GOA's mole hill in my backyard) the NRA has accomplished is a moot point to you over something like you state. I really wonder what peoples' thinking would be if the NRA didn't so some heavy footwork to help out in the Heller case. I really think some people become so callused and complacent on the accomplishments the NRA has done that the nitpick issues are blown out of proportion. __________________ If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language. Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting

October 7, 2010, 11:03 PM	#22
DG45 Senior Member Join Date: January 5, 2009 Posts: 904	The NRA has been the most effective organization of its type ever at defending its turf. This has worked in the favor of all who care about RKBA. There are always going to be some people who don't understand (or like) the fact that NRA reaches out to all political spectrums to achieve that end. I consider these people naive. While there certainly is a faction within the Democratic party that would like to take away your gun rights, there are still a lot of Democrats who don't. There are also other political factions who consider themselves neither Democrats nor Republicans, but whose support we gunowners need, be they Conservatives or Liberals or Liberterians or Tea Party supporters or whatever. Personally, I consider myself a conservative and as such, I generally vote Republican, but I would be the first to say it is the business of the Republican Party to elect Republicans; not the business of the NRA. The business of the NRA is to work on behalf of its membership (and just incidentally, all other Americans who believe in Constitutional government) to protect and defend the Constitutional right of Americans to keep and bear arms, regardless which political party is in power. I fail to see how any intelligent person thinks the NRA could achieve the goals we want it to achieve by associating itself only with the Republican Party - which at the moment controls only a minority of Congressional delegates.

October 7, 2010, 11:17 PM	#23
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	One last thing, the NRA was not necessarily supporting the best candidate but blindly supporting the incumbent even if the opponent was equally or even better qualified which was the gist of the article I linked and why some us are not happy. The NRAs disgraceful support of the Disclosure Act was beyond the pale. How can anyone say "I support the Second Amend" and ignore the First Amendment even if the NRA made a backroom deal with the devil and got a special exemption for themselves from the Disclosure Act. There will not be a Second Amendment if the First Amendment is gutted with the help of the NRA. That ain't right. Last edited by jmortimer; October 7, 2010 at 11:24 PM.

October 7, 2010, 11:21 PM	#24
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,389	From what I've been able to tell, over the past 5 or 10 years, GOA seems to have spent the vast majority of its money bitching about NRA in an effort to siphon off members, and putting precious little of it to work protecting our rights. "Most all the good things have been done on a State Level as the maps from Gun Nuttery deomstrate http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php" Very odd that you'd put that map up there, apparently as some means of casting aspersions at NRA. Here's the truth of the matter. NRA poured an amazing amount of time, effort, and money into those states over the years in an effort to get shall issue laws passed, FAR more than any other organization could even hope to. And it continues to pour time, effort, and money into the states when needed. NRA isn't only active at the Federal level - it's also instrumental in funding, coordinating, and supporting pro-rights activities at the state and local levels, as well. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

October 7, 2010, 11:31 PM	#25
Frank Ettin Staff Join Date: November 23, 2005 Location: California - San Francisco Posts: 9,471	Nonetheless, the NRA is very politically astute, and there are excellent political reasons to support an incumbent who is a strong supporter of the RKBA rather than someone new. An incumbent will have more seniority, a better shot at better committee appointments, and he will already know his way around. Someone who supports the RKBA and who has been in his office a while will generally be able to more effectively promote our RKBA interests than a freshman. That's just a fact of political life. An incumbent who is good on your issue will be a better choice than someone new, at least on your issue. It sounds to me like the NRA has endorsed candidates it has reasonably concluded are most likely to be the most effective at promoting the RKBA. That's what I, as a Benefactor Life Member, expect them to do.