Ammo For Sale

« « Unpossible | Home | What everyone needs » »

The R doesn’t stand for Republican

No doubt drinking the GOA Kool-Aid, RedState’s Erick Erickson seems to have a bug up his ass for NRA. His latest is ZOMG!!!eleven NRA MAY ENDORSE REID. Well, yeah. They tend to have a policy of endorsing candidates who are pro-gun and incumbents. And Reid is both. Harry Reid is also pretty popular being Senate Majority Leader. And is why a lot of gun control bills never make it to the floor. A recent American Rifleman had featured Reid.

I don’t care for Reid’s other politics at all. He’s a porker and I don’t support his overall agenda. But on guns, he’s pretty good.

31 Responses to “The R doesn’t stand for Republican”

  1. John Smith Says:

    So if the NRA supports Reid does that make people who support the NRA pro-Socialist/Democrat by association. If you knowingly support and organization that supports someone who attacks all of this countries freedoms save for guns what does that make you??? Funny how much evil can be overlooked if the villain has just one opinion that mirrors your own. I will never understand how Americans can buy into the 9 large lies 1 large truth deal. Even the europeans do not fall for that. They take the 9 large truths for 1 huge lie path. Sounds like we are getting shortchanged…

  2. John Smith Says:

    My comment is awaiting censoring…. How very poetic to my previous post…

  3. SayUncle Says:

    stop using spam words. Socialist always trips it.

  4. SayUncle Says:

    And when you find that one perfect organization that supports all of my views and is effective, let me know. I’ll send them money too.

    In the interim, I’ll divide it among NRA, SAF, ACLU and others.

  5. John Smith Says:

    How about an organization that actually only supports one view as advertised without destroying the others.

  6. SayUncle Says:

    NRA is destroying others now?

  7. John Smith Says:

    Divided loyalty can never succeed. The constitution is an all or nothing affair. You either stand by it all or you stand by none of it. The NRA and the others you listed support pieces of the constitution but unequally and when convenient. One reason an organization will not ever perform as well as an individual ie Allen Gura is because in the end they do not actually care about the country as a whole. Only the bottom line. Politics.

  8. SayUncle Says:

    As I said then, find me that perfect, effective organization. It’s somewhere over there near the hope and change and rainbow farting unicorns.

  9. John Smith Says:

    How many lives has the things Reid has condoned destroyed? Who in the country has not been affected from poor to wealthy? If you support the villain you are no better then he. The NRA supports him while you support them knowing what things he does to you. Is that ignorance or sadomasochism. You pay someone to hurt you by third party. If I want someone to hurt me I would pay them outright instead of going the long way. Inefficient way of going about things really.

  10. SayUncle Says:

    Still waiting for that perfect organization to support. In the meantime, I’ll choose those things important to me and support them.

  11. John Smith Says:

    Hope and change is where you do things for yourself. If things are not the way you like them then change it. Gura stood on his own two feet. Why can’t we. If all those people who pay the NRA to do the dirty work for them took the step of doing something similar to what Gura did would the NRA even be needed. If your dreams come true were they ever really dreams to begin with?
    If we are really not willing to get our hands dirty then perhaps we deserve to live under the thumb of lobbyists. The perfect organization is the one you make for yourself.

  12. Kasper Says:

    I have no problem if the NRA supports pro-gun Dems. They support my congresscritter Lincoln Davis. It
    makes it more difficult for the nutjobs to claim
    the NRA is just part of the right-wing propoganda
    machine.

  13. John Smith Says:

    Kasper do you find it funny to sacrifice your values because someone calls you a name? If you set aside what you believe whenever strife appears what does that say about you? It screams the weakness which your enemies are truly watching for.

  14. Rivrdog Says:

    When you’re involved in a huge fight, as a minority, with a huge government on the other side of the fence, you don’t get to pick your allies.

    The GOA is REALLY on our side, and the internecine war illustrated here does NOT strengthen our alliance.

    That is all.

  15. SPQR Says:

    I’m in favor of a gun rights organization that holds a simple, straightforward guns rights position and that does not exclude people of other ideological positions than mine so long as they too are guns rights supporters. The NRA has long had members from both sides of the partisan spectrum. The past identification of gun control as a Democratic party platform plank is the Democrats problem, not the NRA’s.

    The NRA is simply doing its job.

  16. Jake Says:

    The constitution is an all or nothing affair. You either stand by it all or you stand by none of it.

    In principle, I agree. Unfortunately, in the real world you have to prioritize your principles because sometimes standing by them all at the same time means losing everything. Look at the Libertarian Party for an example. They stand by all their principles equally at the same time rather than prioritizing and working towards the most important or most likely to succeed first. While it is certainly a morally ideal position, as a result they are almost completely politically ineffective and are generally considered a joke.

    The NRA focuses on gun rights, and only gun rights. They do not consider candidate’s positions on other issues, which makes them more effective as advocates for gun rights. There are other organizations that advocate for other issues. By doing this they are able to gather a large membership because they are not driving off members who support gun rights but disagree on other issues. They are taken seriously in politics because of that large membership. They are not seen as a “tool” of one specific party, so that accusation is not an effective weapon against them (which I think was Kasper’s point).

    I’d rather support multiple effective organizations that I may disagree with on some points than one organization that I agree with on all points but doesn’t have the ability to accomplish anything. One gets me some gains while allowing me to look elsewhere (or wait till later) for the rest, while the other leaves me with nothing but outrage.

  17. cargosquid Says:

    There is some disagreement about Reid’s 2nd Amendment bonafides.

    http://new84rules.blogspot.com/2010/07/nra-to-endorse-anti-gun-harry-reid-in.html

    June 28, 1991. Vote No. 115. Voted for a 5 day waiting period for handgun purchases.

    October 21, 1993. Vote 325. Voted to eliminate the Army Civilian Marksmanship Program. Only the most fringe anti-gun Senators voted for the amendment.

    November 19, 1993. Vote 385. Allow states to impose waiting periods over and above the 5 days waiting period required under the Brady Bill.

    November 19, 1993. Vote 386. Voted to eliminate he 5-year sunset in the Brady Bill.

    November 19, 1993. Vote 387. Voted to close off debate on the Brady Bill.

    November 19, 1993. Vote 390. Voted to close off debate on the Brady Bill.

    November 20, 1993. Vote 394. Voted for the Brady Bill, which imposed a 5-business-day waiting period before purchasing a handgun.

    August 25, 1994. Vote 294. Voted to close off debate on the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

    August 25, 1994. Vote 295. Voted for the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

    April 17, 1996. Vote 64. Voted to expand the statute of limitations for paperwork violations in National Firearms Act from 3 years to 5 years.

    June 27, 1996. Vote 178. Voting 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.

    September 12, 1996. Vote 287. Voted to spend $21.5 million for a study on putting “taggants” in black and smokeless gunpowder.

    September 12, 1996. Vote 290. Voted to make it a Federal crime to possess a gun within 1,000 yards of a school.

    May 12, 1999. Vote 111. Voted to give the Treasury Department expansive new authority to regulate and keep records on gun shows and their participants, and criminalize many intrastate firearms transactions.

    May 13, 1999. Vote 116. Voted to ban the importation of ammunition clips that can hold more than 10 rounds.

    May 14, 1999. Vote 119. Voted to criminalize internet advertisements to sell legal firearms in a legal manner.

    May 18, 1999. Vote 122. Voted to for Mandatory triggerlocks.

    May 20, 1999. Vote 133. Voted to create new Federal regulation of pawn shops handling of guns.

    May 20, 1999. Vote 134. Voted to give the Treasury Department expansive new authority to regulate and keep records on gun shows and their participants, and criminalize many intrastate firearms transactions. The vote was 50-50, with Vice President Gore casting the tie-breaking vote.

    May 20, 1999. Vote 140. Voted for the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a package of gun control measures.

    July 29, 1999. Vote 224. Voted to close debate on the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a package of gun control measures.

    February 2, 2000. Vote 4. Voted to make firearms manufacturers and distributors’ debts nondischargeable in bankruptcy if they were sued because they unknowingly sold guns to individuals who used the gun in a crime. 68 Senators voted against Reid’s position, including 17 Democrats including Bryan of Nevada.

    March 2, 2000. Vote 27. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings.

    March 2, 2000. Vote 28. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings (reconsideration of vote 27).

    March 2, 2000. Vote 32. Voted to use Federal taxpayer funds to hand out anti-gun literature in schools and to run anti-gun public service announcements.

    April 6, 2000. Vote 64. Voted for a gun control package including new onerous restrictions on gun shows.

    April 7, 2000. Vote 74. Voted against an amendment to provide for the enforcement of existing gun laws in lieu of new burdensome gun control mandates.

    May 16, 2000. Vote 100. Voted to commend the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures.

    May 17, 2000. Vote 102. Vote to overturn the ruling of the chair that the Daschle amendment (commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures) was out of order.

    May 17, 2000. Vote 103. Voted against an amendment stating “the right of each law-abiding United States citizen to own a firearm for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense or recreation, should not be infringed.”

    May 17, 2000. Vote 104. Voted for an amendment commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures.

    February 26, 2004. Vote 17. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks.

    March 2, 2004. Vote 25. Voted for Federal regulation of gun shows.

    July 28, 2005. Vote 207. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks.

    March 5, 2009. Vote 83. Voted against a ban on the United Nations imposing taxes on American citizens after France and other world leaders proposed a global tax on firearms.

  18. SebastianWho'llGetHisBlogRunningEventually Says:

    NRA bashing is the new black.

  19. Miguel Says:

    -“Mr. Smith, you need by-pass surgery to save your life. We have this great heart surgeon that will take care of you.”
    -“Is he also a podiatrist?”
    -“Huh?”
    -“And a Proctologist-Ear-Nose-Throat, gerontologist, brain surgeon?”
    -“Mr. Smith. He is the top notch Heart Surgeon!”
    -“Well, I don’t want him. My body is an all or nothing affair. I want a surgeon that can operate any part of my body I want. I want a No-Compromise Doctor!”
    -“Mr. Smith, have you made arrangements for your funeral? If not, I suggest you start now.”

  20. Sebastian Says:

    I will have a response to Erickson’s list once I get time. First, many of them are a decade old. Secondly, a lot of the votes are misleading. Most everyone, for instance, voted for the eventual crime bill, including a lot of Republicans. The key is whether they voted for the assault weapons amendment. The Crime Bill was an omnibus bill the White House put their full weight behind, which if you get an amendment attached to, you’re fucked.

    Such is the case with several of these. It’s pretty clear that he’s been getting his information from Larry Pratt, who cares more about making Democrats look bad than he does about the Second Amendment.

  21. Matthew Carberry Says:

    That’s not quite fair Sebastian.

    Larry Pratt cares more about making Larry Pratt look good (and remotely relevant in 2nd A. issues on a national level) than he does about making anyone in particular look bad.

  22. nk Says:

    I voted for Poshard (D) vs. Ryan (R-prisoner). Poshard was from downstate, solidly RKBA, Ryan was from Chicago, Blagojevich in disguise.

  23. cargosquid Says:

    Since both candidates, according to the NRA, are “gun friendly”, why not stay neutral? Why endorse Reid?

  24. SayUncle Says:

    they tend to endorse incumbents.

  25. straightarrow Says:

    Uncle, did it occur to you that supporting the intentionally imperfect sort of denies access to the more nearly perfect?

    I think you should send them all your money, every bit of it. I support that. Go ahead.

  26. NukemJim Says:

    IMHO the NRA is correct in endorsing Reid.

    I do not belong and will not belong to the NRA.(Irrelevant long story why) I do not like some of the postions of the NRA. They annoyed the bejeebers out of me when they got 1/3 of Gura’s face time before the supremes.

    However I buy raffle tickets, donate everytime I go shooting, particapte in the “round up” program whenever purchasing gear and supplies etc… Why? Because like them or not they are fighting for one thing i.e. firearms rights and they are the most effective organazation out there. They are the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Just their mere interest in a situation causes many politicians to get very nervous. The media and politicians frequently state that they are the most effective lobbying organization in the US. Overall their track record has been excellent.

    Are they perfect? Bleep no, but in reality nothing (or no one) is perfect.

    As to the question “Since both candidates, according to the NRA, are “gun friendly”, why not stay neutral? Why endorse Reid?”

    My, you are new to politics aren’t you?

    OK, one word “Seniority”

    And remember from the incumbent’s point of view, if you do not support him he will not help you. Why should he help you?, you did not help him. So by not choosing sides you have a 94% chance of losing the help of a very powerful politician who was on your side and if the challenger wins, why will he help you? You did not help him. Even if he does want to help you, he will not have enough seniority to be effective for 10-15 years. The numbers are the last 10 years for the US house of Reps. Site is http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php

    NukemJim

    M

  27. mike Says:

    I’ll give you 4 words why NRA should support Reid.

    Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

    It is very unlikely that the Rs take the Senate. If Reid loses, Schumer or Durbin will be leader and screw us every chance they can. Reid is imperfect but he has been helpful in passing pro-gun bills and keeping anti-gun bills like a new gun ban from coming to the floor.

    I’ll take a Dem controlled Senate with 54 members with Reid as Majority Leader over a Dem controlled Senate with 53 members and Chuck Schumer running the show.

    It may not be a perfect choice but that’s the choice.

  28. Sebastian Says:

    I’ll give you 4 words why NRA should support Reid.

    Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

    Exactly! The other choice is Dick Durbin. Either way we’re pretty much fucked.

  29. cargosquid Says:

    I did not know that about Chuckie and Dickie. Yeah…I can see your point.

  30. Rick Says:

    One might ask, why is a Marxist minded type like Reid, who sees nothing wrong with destroying (denying it) the Constitution, BUT stands behind the 2nd Amendment?? That picture does not square with his basic nature. So put him back in office, based on his claims of being ALL for the 2nd Amendment, and thank him while he continues to erode all your other rights??!!

    Why would i trust a rattlesnake that promises not to bite me, but bites all others around me??

  31. Rick Says:

    Cargosquid’s posting of Reid’s voting record on firearms pretty much says it all…….AND the NRA wants me to beleive i need this kind of enemy as a friedn?