Gun rights and Reid
Despite the nattering at Red State, Harry Reid is mostly good on gun rights. It’s all the other stuff that sucks. More here.
14 Responses to “Gun rights and Reid”
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)
May 26th, 2011 at 9:45 am
Voters can have priorities, but Reid is a good reason not to be a one-issue voter.
May 26th, 2011 at 9:56 am
You can be pro-gun, but then vote for judges who will take away your gun rights???? That more than negates any “Pro-Gun” credentials Dingy Harry has. He’s “pro-gun” because he has to be in Nevada.
May 26th, 2011 at 10:01 am
Reid is also why a lot of anti-gun bills don’t even get voted on. the system isn’t perfect but calling reid anti-gun is flatly wrong.
May 26th, 2011 at 10:56 am
“Harry Reid is mostly good on gun rights.”
Uhh….on what planet?
* August 25, 1994—Voted to end a filibuster led by pro-gun Senators against the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on many semi-automatic firearms (the so-called “assualt weapons ban; Vote No. 294).
* August 25, 1994—Voted for the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on many semi-automatic firearms (the so-called “assault weapons” ban; Vote No. 295).
* June 27, 1996—Voted to destroy 176,000 M-1 Garand rifles from World War II, and 150 million rounds of .30 caliber ammunition, rather than giving them to the Federal Civilian Marksmanship program (Vote No. 178).
* May 13, 1999—Voted to ban the importation of ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds (Vote No. 116).
* February 2, 2000—Voted for an amendment offered by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) to help the cities bring frivolous suits against gun makers (Vote No. 4).
Should I go on? That’s 2 minutes worth of this thing I call “Google.”
Yeah, Harry Reid is “mostly good” on guns. You NRA apologists crack me up. Anything to excuse the fact that the NRA has backed this guy for years, right?
May 26th, 2011 at 11:03 am
You can gripe about how bad Reid is, but remember, if he goes while Democrats still control the Senate, next in line is Chucky Boy Schumer, who is only about 1000X worse….
May 26th, 2011 at 11:12 am
Not sure what NRA apologists has to do with anything. And reid started out with f grades and worked up to As and Bs. And what Nathan said.
May 26th, 2011 at 11:41 am
Yeah, so we should just let someone who is slightly less awful remain where they are….great idea.
NRA apologist has to do with the fact that the NRA is the only reason why gun owners defend Harry Reid. They have endorsed this guy for years and so everyone who thinks the NRA is great rushes to defend that move.
The reality is the guy is horrible on Second Amendment rights. Everything I mentioned in the comment above is recorded fact — not conjecture, not “feelings” about what he did.
The only people who think that Harry Reid is good on guns are the people who believe the same thing the NRA did for years and years — that those scary black rifles have no legitimate purpose (hence the Assault Weapons ban) and those who disagree with decisions like McDonald v Chicago in the “individual” sense of firearm ownership.
May 26th, 2011 at 11:46 am
Of course they did. They’re single issue. They did not endorse him last election though.
Saying reid is mostly good on guns is not defending him. I wouldn’t vote for him. But I wouldn’t lie and say he’s anti-gun either.
May 26th, 2011 at 11:52 am
“They did not endorse him last election though.”
Really? So giving money to his campaign is not an endorsement?
Saying Reid is “mostly good on guns” is saying exactly that. And he’s not. He’s not even close.
What I find interesting is that blogs like yours bring in money by advertisers like Brownells and Cheaper than Dirt using those “Assault Rifles” to bring in customers. The same rifles that people like Harry Reid wanted to (and still do) ban from civilian ownership. Yet he gets a “mostly good on guns.” No. He’s not. Just accept it and admit that the NRA has been horribly, horribly wrong for years about him.
May 26th, 2011 at 11:59 am
Endorsements are, you know, actual endorsements where they say ‘we endorse this person’.
Reid does not support the AWB. He voted for it in 94 and opposed it since, stating he was wrong.
I can’t admit they’re horribly wrong when, so far, you’re the one who has been wrong.
May 26th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Giving money to a campaign is an endorsement. Whether stated as such, it’s reality. You know it, I know it. Everyone reading here knows it.
If your wife gave money to Chuck Schumer and then said “Oh but I don’t endorse him,” would you say “oh, well then that’s ok.” I highly doubt it.
I haven’t been wrong about any of this. Either Reid voted for anti-gun bills or he didn’t. Those are recorded facts. Feel free to look them up for the sake of defending one of the worst Senators we have right now. Flip-flopping doesn’t change the fact that he did.
And if you really think he wouldn’t be in favor of banning assault weapons now if the political tides on Second Amendment shifted, you are beyond help.
May 26th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Yes, you’re completely right if we change the definition of endorsement and it was 1994.
May 26th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
When did Reid vote against Roberts and Alito for SCOTUS? Oh that’s right, it was just a few years ago… When did he vote for Kagan and Sotomayor? You’re right, it’s not 1994 — he’s gotten worse since then.
My argument about an “endorsement” still stands. How would you feel about your best friend giving a huge wad of cash to Pelosi or Feinstein and then saying “yeah, but I don’t endorse them”? Go ahead and try to convince your readers that’s “different.”
May 26th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Giving a politician money isn’t an endorsement. Its a cost of doing business.