The R doesn’t stand for Republican
Someone is upset that NRA is supporting Harry Reid. For all the issues I have with Reid, he’s quite pro-gun. And is also probably why gun control bills never see the floor.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
June 1st, 2010 at 2:42 pm
If more NRA members read their newsletters they would know that many democratic politicians get high marks and that 35% of NRA members are registered democrats.
June 1st, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Why do otherwise useless pieces of solid waste have to go and be pro gun. Everything else they do totally sucks except their stance on gun control which redeems them quite a bit. I hope their replacements this fall at least keep their pro gun agenda and hopefully a few other positives too other than being excellent fertilizer.
June 1st, 2010 at 5:08 pm
I enjoy seeing this man I dislike so much pull out his shotgun and go skeet shooting at least once a year. Makes me realize, every time I see pictures of it, America truly is a wonderful place.
June 1st, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Not only pro-gun, but the way things work; if he goes down we get a choice of anti-gunners. This is A Bad Thing. Much as I hate Reid’s other politics, having him go down would be a heavy blow.
June 1st, 2010 at 10:19 pm
NRA is a pro-2A organization not an arm of the Republican party.
June 2nd, 2010 at 7:44 am
Of all the democrats, reid is the most logical one to support.
He’s pro gun, he has extremely high seniority and this gives him the ability to work for us on a national level.
I still think he’s gonna lose in november, which (barring some sort of miracle) means the democrats will have a 50-55 seat majority under Chuck Schemer from NY. Now that will really suck if Pelosi holds on to the House.
June 2nd, 2010 at 8:03 am
Is is Schemer? I thought Durbin was next up? Either way…
June 2nd, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Reid may not have sponsored a gun ban bill but he supports those that have and will ban guns. Reid supports the nonsense about American guns being used in Mexico! That’s a blatant pretext to a gun ban treaty to circumvent congress! A permanent gun ban is the goal of the Democratic party as a whole. Even pro-civil-rights Democrats consider gun-rights secondary to their vote buying, wealth redistribution schemes. I’ve stopped all NRA recruitment because of this. I’m returning all the money I have collected. This makes me sick, because I just pushed my friends to join… Until I hear them explain how this is all a mistake…
June 2nd, 2010 at 12:26 pm
And political calculations as to what is best for gun owners in general can make for apparantly weird results, especially in a primary race.
If a “B” or “C” candidate is facing an “A” (or more likely, “AQ”) candidate in a primary, but the “B” or “C” candidate is deemed reasonable electable, whilst the “A” or “AQ” candidate is deemed utterly unelectable, they may well endorce the lower rated candidate if the opposition in the general will be even lower rated.
Additionally, they may endorse a “C” candidate over a “B” candidate, if the election of the “B” candidate might throw the senior position in that legislative house (and thus, control over legislation being introduced or quashed via parlimentary procedures) from an “A”, “B”, or “C” candidate to a “D” or “F” candidate. Would getting a freshman senator or representative with a high NRA rating be worth getting Feinstein or Schumer behind the driver’s wheel of all legislation for the next two years? probably not, in teh big picture. . .
June 2nd, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Rick:
Reid has actively supported gun owners this session. Next time you step into a National Park area with a gun, thank Harry Reid. If it wasn’t for him it never would have happened. We never would have had a vote on National Reciprocity either. It’s not that he hasn’t sponsored gun ban bills, the guy has gone out of his way to help us under a difficult situation, and we’ve succeeded. The bigger question is why wouldn’t NRA support him.
June 3rd, 2010 at 3:05 am
I once thought that you could judge a politician by their stance on gun rights alone. I thought that meant a lot, it normally does. Reid is the exception. Reid is gaming the NRA system. Reid calls you racists and votes for laws that make free speech ILLEGAL. This was the same law that prevented the NRA from mentioning any politicians name 60 days before an election. This law was struck down as unconstitutional, but too late. Reid actively promotes the idea that free speech is bad, giving it undefined labels like “hate speech”. He sponsored a bill in 2007, SB1 sec 220. It required persons, speaking to over 500 people, to REGISTER QUARTERLY WITH THE GOVERNMENT or face a $100,000 fine.
The 2nd Amendment is part of a package. You cannot abandon the other amendments and expect the one you like to survive. It really does take more than having a pro-gun voting record, it takes a pro Bill of Rights voting record.
The NRA seems to be pulling a Zumbo or a Dan Cooper, on this one.
I will support the NRA, but it still makes me sick.
June 3rd, 2010 at 4:44 pm
The NRA is a single-issue advocacy group. AS AN ORGANIZATION, they care dick-all for the rest of it.
And that’s the way it SHOULD be for a single-issue group. Unlike the various leftist supposedly single-issue groups that care for the “progressive” party line. (Move-On was originally ONLY about suppressing the accusations aagainst and impeachment of Bill Clinton. NOW will support any presidential candidate with a “D” behind his name, regardless of how hideously misogynist he turns out to be. And so forth.)
June 4th, 2010 at 4:45 am
Uh, yeah. How did this “one issue” support thing work with Phil Bredesen? Two over rides of our rights in successive years… The NRA is wrong on this.