Ammo For Sale

« « Mental Health | Home | I laughed » »


NRA gets a lot of grief because the R doesn’t stand for Republican. But they’re grading system is at least understood. Unlike GOA’s, who knock someone down four letter grades in a year.

4 Responses to “Shilling”

  1. The Packetman Says:

    I agree that this instance makes no sense, but to claim that GOA’s system is substantially more nebulous and opaque than the NRA’s is a bit of a stretch.

    Just like in math class ….. show your work.

  2. mikee Says:

    Four letter grades in a year? Heck, that happened to me from one semester to the next one time in college. Had something with doing A work one semester and F work the next. Maybe the gradee did something similar?

  3. Ron W Says:

    Will The NRA Save Nancy Pelosi’s Job?

    Illinois Gun
    October 11, 2010

    Political analysts’ have been predicting a rough time for Democrats in the mid term election, but at the last moment they are receiving a glimmer of hope, this time from the NRA.

    The NRA may think supporting a few Democrats will save them, but there is NO evidence that a Pelosi lead House will be friendly to a pro-gun agenda.

    The current political makeup of the House is 255 Democrats, 178 Republicans and 2 Vacancies. The Republicans will need to pickup 40 additional seats for the GOP to take control of the House.

    The NRA has currently endorsed 58 House Democrats. Over a dozen of these Democrat held seats are considered critical to the GOP if they are to take control of the House.

    The NRA claims to be a nonpartisan, one issue organization with an incumbent friendly policy and has endorsed Democrats in the past.

    The NRA rates incumbents primarily on their voting record of NRA endorsed legislation where as groups like Gun Owners of America rates politicians based on their willingness to support and introduce pro-gun legislation and their overall support of liberty.

    This incumbent friendly policy is causing some to question the NRA, because it may save an anti-gun majority in the House.

    It also appears the NRA has a “my way or the highway” philosophy when it comes to supporting candidates.

    Ron Paul has a history of being an opponent of the federal expansion. In 2003 Paul introduced H.R 153 the Second Amendment Restoration Act. The bill sought to repeal the instant background check, the assault weapons ban and delete the “Sporting Purposes” test from the 1968 Gun Control Act.

    Had H.R. 153 become law it would have been the most important pro-gun legislation in the last 50 years. In the end the bill was DOA.

    By April, 2003 the NRA threatened to pull ALL support from Ron Paul because he refused to support an NRA backed bill that he believed would expand federal power over the states.

    With the decision to support so many democrats for re-election the NRA has apparently decided to maintain the status-quo.

    I am not saying Republicans have all of the answers; after-all they promised to repeal the Brady Bill and restore integrity to our government in 1994.

    The issue becomes who will be in control of the reins of power. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), is one of the most anti-gun, ultra left speakers in the History of the House. If the Democrats hold on to power she will decide what bills come to the floor and can crack the whip to keep her party in line at anytime.

    The NRA may think supporting a few Democrats will save them, but there is NO evidence that a Pelosi lead House will be friendly to a pro-gun agenda.

    Our Rights are under attack; our nation is collapsing under a mountain of debt and corruption and this current round of NRA endorsements has more to do with saving the NRA than saving our Country.

  4. markofafreeman Says:

    I’d like to see evidence that those who are objecting to most of the NRA Democrat endorsements object because there’s a D beside each of their names. It’s tantamount to calling those who oppose our current president racists and it’s unbecoming of intelligent discourse.

    What *I* object to in most of the Democrat endorsements and even some of the Republican endorsements is that this supposed single-issue organization* is ignoring some important strategic factors. When they back away from other issues extremely important to liberty, they virtually guarantee that we will keep barreling toward socialism and it becomes more and more likely that those ‘Second Amendment remedies’ that Sharon Angle spoke of *will* be used. I am *not* advocating it, just stating that the more government bears down on the people, and not just regarding guns…let me just say that the population will only take so much before something snaps.

    I’ll go out on a limb and say that is monumentally stupid to be absolutist in standing firm on being ‘single issue’* because it completely ignores unintended consequences.

    When I can name two Representatives that used to be considered somewhat centrist/blue dog Democrats just off the top of my head (John Spratt SC-5 and Bob Etheridge NC-2) who have become 97%+ Pelosi lock-step voters (and there are certainly more), there’s reason to be concerned about *any* Democrats being endorsed, especially when it’s so often about incumbency with the NRA. I realize that it’s not practical for the NRA to say this publicly, but the Democrats need to purge the Marxists from their leadership ranks before it makes sense to endorse any of them.

    If the NRA wants to continue to remain credible, they need to scrap their incumbent friendly policy and think more strategically. They need to do a lot more, to be sure, but this policy is beginning to look more and more ridiculous in these times.

    It’s not a mystery, by the way, why GOA downgraded Halvorson. It’s quite easy to find the votes that the GOA considered in downgrading her, and she failed every one. Sure, none of them were *pure* gun votes, but were there *any* pure gun votes these past two years? None that I know of. You may not agree with GOA’s policy, but it’s not any more opaque than the NRA’s. It’s quite a mystery to me why they would only bump Reid from A to B based on his two votes for anti-gun Supreme Court nominees. That’s pretty egregious, as it has an affect for potentially a couple generations. The downgrade of A to D by the GOA would probably be mirrored by the NRA if it wasn’t for their incumbent friendly policy. Because the GOA does not have that policy, the four grade bump looks like a shocker, makes perfect sense if you consider unintended (or intended, but poorly disguised) consequences, which the GOA apparently does.

    The GOA absolutely has its flaws, but really which gun bloggers would stop attacking them when they do the right thing, which is more than some like to admit.

    Personally, I may give up on both the NRA and GOA and give my support to SAF. They’re a force to be reckoned with probably more than both the others combined, given their key role in both Heller and MacDonald and their claimed 600,000 members. They are making the better strategic decisions.

    * For a clear example of how the NRA is absolutely *not* a single issue organization, but only claimed that to save face during the whole DISCLOSE debacle, see the cover story of the October, 2010 issue of America’s 1st Freedom by Edmund Burke. If they want to claim they are single issue, they need to stop referring to themselves as “the oldest civil rights organization” in the US.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges