AND, The NRA wants to Support REID. [Archive]

View Full Version : AND, The NRA wants to Support REID.

Marlin

07-15-2010, 05:37 PM

This is from today's GOA Newsletter. The documentation can be easily proven. This man is as ANTI-GUN as they come.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is Harry Reid pro-gun or anti-gun? (http://gunowners.org/is-harry-reid-pro-gun-or-anti-gun.htm)

-- --- You Decide

Nevada Senator Harry Reid claims to be a defender of the Second Amendment. Is that really the case? You decide. Here is a list of votes he has cast over the past twenty years in the U.S. Senate:

1. June 28, 1991—Voted for a 5 day waiting period for handgun purchases (Vote No. 115 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00115)).

2. November 19, 1993—Voted to eliminate the five-year sunset in the Brady Bill's five day waiting period, which would have made the waiting period permanent (Vote No. 386 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00386)).

3. November 19, 1993—Voted to end a filibuster led by pro-gun Senators against the Brady Bill (Vote No. 387 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00387)).

4. November 20, 1993—Voted for the Brady Bill, which imposed a 5-day waiting period before purchasing a handgun (Vote No. 394 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00394)).

5. 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 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=2&vote=00294)).

6. 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 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=2&vote=00295)).

7. April 17, 1996—Voted to expand the statute of limitations for paperwork violations in the National Firearms Act from 3 years to 5 years (Vote No. 64 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00064)).

8. 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 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00178)).

9. September 12, 1996—Voted to spend $21.5 million for a study on putting "taggants" in black and smokeless gunpowder (Vote No. 287 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00287)).

10. September 12, 1996—Voted to make it a Federal crime to possess a gun within 1,000 feet of any school, private or public, and impose a 5-year prison sentence for violating the law (Vote No. 290 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00290)).

11. July 28, 1998—Voted against killing an amendment offered by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) to prohibit the importation of firearm magazines holding over 10 rounds that were manufactured before the 1994 ban was enacted (Vote No. 240 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=240&chamber=S&congress=1052)).

12. May 12, 1999—Voted to ban the private sales of firearms at gun shows unless buyers submitted to background registration checks. Draconian restrictions would have also been imposed on gun show promoters, expanding federal authority in this area (Vote No. 111 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=111&chamber=S&congress=1061)).

13. May 13, 1999—Voted to ban the importation of ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds (Vote No. 116 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=116&chamber=S&congress=1061)).

14. May 14, 1999—Voted for an amendment introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) that would regulate the transfer of firearms over the Internet (Vote No. 119 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=119&chamber=S&congress=1061)).

15. May 18, 1999—Voted for an amendment to force gun sellers to include trigger locks with every handgun sold (Vote No. 122 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=122&chamber=S&congress=1061)).

16. May 20, 1999—Voted for legislation to subject repair shop and pawn shop transactions to the same registration and background check requirements as purchases from dealers—even if a person was reclaiming his own firearm (Vote No. 133 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=133&chamber=S&congress=1061)).

17. May 20, 1999—Voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) that would ban private sales at gun shows, unless the buyer first submits to a background registration check. Even displaying a firearm at a gun show, and subsequently transferring that gun to a non-licensee, would result in a two-year prison sentence. The amendment would also have granted BATF open-ended inspection authority to harass vendors at gun shows, and explicitly gives BATF the right to keep a gun owner registration list for up to 90 days. This amendment passed 51-50, with Vice President Al Gore breaking the tie (Vote No. 134 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=134&chamber=S&congress=1061)).

18. May 20, 1999—Voted for the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a host of gun control provisions (Vote No. 140 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=140&chamber=S&congress=1061)).

19. July 28, 1999—Voted to end a filibuster on the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill. The filibuster was led by Sen. Bib Smith (R-NH) because of concerns with the gun control provisions in the bill (Vote No. 224 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=224&chamber=S&congress=1061)).

20. 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 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=4&chamber=S&congress=1062)).

21. March 2, 2000—Voted for an amendment offered by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) blaming school violence on 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 (Vote No. 28 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=28&chamber=S&congress=1062)).

22. March 2, 2000—Voted to use Federal taxpayer funds to hand out anti-gun literature in schools and to run anti-gun public service announcements (Vote No. 32 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00032)).

23. April 6, 2000—Voted for and cosponsored a "sense of the Senate" amendment urging the passage of new gun control restrictions (Vote No. 64 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00064)).

24. March 2, 2000—Voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) urging the passage of the ant-gun juvenile crime bill being opposed by GOA (Vote No. 28 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=28&chamber=S&congress=1062)).

25. April 10, 2000—Voted for a non-binding amendment offered by Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) urging the House-Senate conferees to get the juvenile anti-gun bill to the floor of each chamber by April 20 (Vote No. 64 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=64&chamber=S&congress=1062)).

26. May 17, 2000—Voted with 29 other F-rated Senators 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." (Vote No. 103 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=103&chamber=S&congress=1062)).

27. May 17, 2000—Voted for a resolution praising the participants of the so-called Million Mom March, and calling on Congress to pass the anti-gun juvenile crime bill that GOA was fighting (Vote No. 104 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=104&chamber=S&congress=1062)).

28. April 2, 2001—Voted for the Incumbent Protection Act, so-called campaign finance reform (Vote No. 64 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=64&chamber=S&congress=1071)).

29. March 20, 2002—Voted to end a filibuster of the odious Incumbent Protection bill. The blatantly unconstitutional legislation squelches the voice of groups like Gun Owners of America in the final days before an election. By making it difficult, if not impossible, for groups to criticize the anti-gun actions of legislators prior to an election, incumbents are able to duck accountability for those actions (Vote No. 53 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=53&chamber=S&congress=1072)).

30. February 26, 2004—Voted for an amendment to require all handgun purchasers to pay an implicit "gun tax" by requiring them to buy a trigger lock when they purchase their handgun, irrespective of need. In addition, the amendment would create a broad cause of action against gun owners who fail to actually use the storage device to lock up their firearms (Vote No. 17 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=17&chamber=S&congress=1082)).

31. March 2, 2004—Voted to outlaw the private sale of firearms at gun shows unless the buyer agrees to submit to an FBI background registration check. This legislative would have effectively eliminated gun shows because of stringent requirements placed on event sponsors (Vote No. 25 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=25&chamber=S&congress=1082)).

32. July 28, 2005—Voted for an amendment to require all handgun purchasers to pay an implicit "gun tax" by requiring them to buy a trigger lock when they purchase their handgun, irrespective of need (Vote No. 207 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=207&chamber=S&congress=1091)).

33. September 29, 2005—Voted against John Roberts for Supreme Court Justice. Roberts' record and testimony to the Senate show that he is strong advocate for Second Amendment rights. Had Reid's position prevailed on this vote, the 5-4 decisions in Heller and McDonald could have gone the other way (Vote No. 245 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00245)).

34. January 18, 2007—Voted against an amendment to strike language in a bill that would infringe upon the free speech rights of groups like GOA by requiring them to monitor and report on communications with members, and could easily have led to government demands for organizational membership list (a.k.a. registration) (Vote No. 17 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=17&chamber=S&congress=1101)).

35. January 31, 2006—Voted against Samuel Alito for Supreme Court Justice. Justice Alito's record and testimony to the Senate show that he is strong advocate for Second Amendment rights. Had Reid's position prevailed on this vote, the 5-4 decisions in Heller and McDonald could have gone the other way (Vote No. 2 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00002)) .

36. February 2, 2009—Voted to confirm Eric Holder as Attorney General. Holder was an anti-Second Amendment official for the Clinton administration, and has called for a renewal of the Clinton gun ban (Vote No. 32 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=32&chamber=S&congress=1111)).

37. March 19, 2009—Voted to massively expand the amount of land covered by the National Parks gun ban. As Majority Leader, Reid frustrated the efforts of pro-gun Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) for more than a year to repeal the gun ban. Sen. Coburn's position ultimately prevailed after overcoming Reid's opposition later in 2009 (Vote No. 106 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=106&chamber=S&congress=1111)).

38. June 25, 2009—Voted to confirm Harold Koh as Legal Advisor to the Department of State. GOA warned all Senators that Koh is a radical globalist pushing for worldwide gun control regulation, including the UN Treaty on Small Arms (Vote No. 213 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=213&chamber=S&congress=1111)).

39. August 6, 2009—Voted to confirm Sonya Sotomayor as Supreme Court Justice. GOA warned all Senators that Judge Sotomayor's record on gun rights was one of hostility to the Second Amendment, which was born out in her dissent in the McDonald decision (Vote No. 262 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=262&chamber=S&congress=1111)).

40. September 9, 2009—Voted to confirm Cass Sunstein as Administrator of Regulatory Affairs (Regulatory Czar). GOA notified all Senators that Cass Sunstein is a radical leftist who would like to ban hunting and give animals some of the same rights as humans in the courtroom (Vote No. 273 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=273&chamber=S&congress=1111)).

41. December 24, 2009—Reid used his position as Majority Leader to pass the ObamaCare legislation. This bill will allow the BATFE and FBI to troll through the ObamaCare database for gun owners who would be disqualified because of their medical information (Vote No. 396 (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=396&chamber=S&congress=1111)).

42. HARRY REID WILL CONTINUE TO VOTE AGAINST GUNS UNTIL HE IS DEFEATED.

45nut

07-15-2010, 07:11 PM

Well, he's more pro gun than Nancy Pelochit, but that ain't saying much! :D

If they do support this rat, I say we get off the ship and play a dirge as it sinks.

Bobitis

07-15-2010, 07:15 PM

The NRA has, AND continues to support this d-bag.:eek:

I'd like to know why.:mad:

Jim K

07-15-2010, 09:47 PM

The NRA is looking ahead. IF Reid is defeated, but the Dems retain control of the Senate, a good bet for Majority Leader would be Chuck Schumer, without a doubt the most fanatical hater of guns and gun owners in Congress. A Majority Leader Schumer would immediately move an assault weapons ban, severe handgun restrictions, a ban on rifle ownership except for a few "authorized" hunters, and probably a ban on pump and autoloading shotguns. He would want total gun confiscation, but probably wouldn't be able to go that far.

So it depends a bit on the situation in the fall. If it looks like the Repubs will take control of the Senate easily, then voting against Reid makes sense. But if it looks like the Dems will retain control, Reid will be inestimably better than Schumer and will be even less inclined to support new gun control legislation if he knows the NRA helped him keep his seat.

Jim

graehaven

07-16-2010, 07:26 AM

So.... their position is to, pander to expediency of the moment/situation.

Wow, that's integrity.

So their support can be "bought" then. Interesting.

They called me the other night and hit me up for over $200 for the "fight against the gun haters in congress." What bullcrap. I told 'em to get lost. I'm not buying their rhetoric anymore.

carver

07-16-2010, 07:35 AM

graehaven

07-16-2010, 07:46 AM

As I've said on here before, If every gun owning American had gone out and voted for the 3rd party candidate, we wouldn't be having many of the conversations we now have about the executive branch. :rolleyes: But, people have to stop buying into the choosing the "lesser of two evils" process, IMHO.

If they have an R or D in front of their name, don't vote for them (except for one, and that would be Ron Paul).

EDIT: Sorry, when I say "3rd Party," I'm of course referring to the Libertarian candidates, that ran in the presidential election. Were they perfect? No. Better than the other two choices? Hands down.

carver

07-16-2010, 08:17 AM

Three choices means that the Consertive vote gets split two ways. Insuring the Liberal's win. Would I have liked to see Ron Paul in the White House? Yes! A much better choice than McCain. However, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution specifies how many electors each state is entitled to have and that each state's legislature decides how its electors are to be chosen. All of these people are either Republicant's, or Demoncrats, and that's the way they will vote. This is where we must start. We really don't get to choose who sits in the highest seat in the Country, the Electoral College does. Let's be sure to vote in true constitutional consertive legislatures in November. Then if Ron Paul runs again, he just might have a chance!

hogger129

07-16-2010, 08:44 AM

Get rid of Reid. I don't care what the NRA says about him, he's a piece of crap.

Hells Toy Master

07-16-2010, 03:24 PM

Marlin, who did you vote for in the last Presidential election? Don't answer, it's a retorical question. You, like so many others, including myself, probably voted for McCain. Believe me when I say that I did not want McCain for President, but I voted for the lesser of two evils. Most probably, you did too! Sometimes it's the only choice we have.

Ditto :(

The NRA is looking ahead. IF Reid is defeated, but the Dems retain control of the Senate, a good bet for Majority Leader would be Chuck Schumer, without a doubt the most fanatical hater of guns and gun owners in Congress. A Majority Leader Schumer would immediately move an assault weapons ban, severe handgun restrictions, a ban on rifle ownership except for a few "authorized" hunters, and probably a ban on pump and autoloading shotguns. He would want total gun confiscation, but probably wouldn't be able to go that far.

So it depends a bit on the situation in the fall. If it looks like the Repubs will take control of the Senate easily, then voting against Reid makes sense. But if it looks like the Dems will retain control, Reid will be inestimably better than Schumer and will be even less inclined to support new gun control legislation if he knows the NRA helped him keep his seat.

Jim

No your wrong. As it stands the republicans look to be picking up enough seats to get to 51 seats and thus a majorty... any and all attempts to help MR GUN BAN will only help the Democrats keep control cause the vote will land on a 50/50 split and the Vice pres gets to vote as the tie breaker.

NO I see this as a clear betral by THE NRA and I have turned in my card and I WILL NEVER support them again.

I am also calling the other gun clubs that I belong to and telling them whats going on and if they continue to support the NRA then I wont support them.

Give a gun Hater a inch and they will take a mile and the NRA is giving them that inch.

Bobitis

07-16-2010, 05:47 PM

^Agreed^

millwright

07-16-2010, 06:14 PM

Perhaps some here feel the rabidly anti-firearm Senator Schumer (D-NY) would be a better choice as Majority Leader ? !!! This is what will happen if Reid is unseated. >MW

45nut

07-16-2010, 07:37 PM

Perhaps some here feel the rabidly anti-firearm Senator Schumer (D-NY) would be a better choice as Majority Leader ? !!! This is what will happen if Reid is unseated. >MW

The libs are going to loose so big that it doesn't matter who supports Reid. Chucky will not rise to Senate Majority leader because he won't be able too.

You have got to stop playing politics and elect honorable people to replace the RINO's and Dems.

It's time to elect TEA Party folks and remove the career politicians.

Bobitis

07-16-2010, 07:47 PM

Perhaps some here feel the rabidly anti-firearm Senator Schumer (D-NY) would be a better choice as Majority Leader ? !!! This is what will happen if Reid is unseated. >MW

I'm tired of electing the worse of two evils.
I'm tired of the NRA endorsing the lesser of two evils.
The ONLY way to stop this mentality is to stop funding it.:mad:

Perhaps my logic is wrong, but it doesn't feel like it.

We need to stop this madness. The sooner the better.:mad:

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

45nut

07-16-2010, 08:02 PM

^ RIGHT ON BOB ^

belercous

07-17-2010, 01:04 AM

ampaterry

07-17-2010, 06:37 AM

Let me see if I get this right:

1. The conservatives MIGHT NOT gain control of the Senate.
2. IF they do not, and IF Reid is defeated, someone worse MIGHT be appointed majority leader.

Therefore, we support Reid, an anti-gunner.

Hey, maybe we need to vote for Obama, just in case his opponent is even worse - -

Good grief, folks -
Listen to the thunder in the distance -
See the cloud of dust from the approaching conservatives -
feel the vibrations of an awakening giant -
We can only lose if well meaning but wrong decisions like this are made, causing conservatives to vote for a liberal!

graehaven

07-17-2010, 08:11 AM

Hells Toy Master

07-18-2010, 09:45 AM

O.K. guys, I understand that most people are not very politically aware, the readers ofthis forum being no exception.
There is a VERY GOOD reason why the NRA supports Harry Reid. That reason is: if Angle wins the seat (not likely) and the G.O.P. does not regain control of the Senate (they can't), then guess who is then the likely next Senate Majority Leader?
Anybody think that Dick Durbin is gonna be more favorable to gun rights?
Now you know why the N.R.A. supports Harry Reid. Do ya want 1/2 a loaf, or nothing? That's the only realistic options today. I'll take the 1/2 loaf.

So Planning on being defeated is the NRA's M.O.?

Why in the world would ANYONE in today's age Plan to lose when there is such a anti Lib / socialist / Fascist mood in the nation today.

EVERY effort should be on Victory, and the fact that the NRA is planning on defeat speaks volumes on their moral fortitude and yours.

Besides if you cant win you dont go sucking up to your mortal enemy and beg them to slit your throat instead of fighting them to the bitter end.

If you think the NRA's help of Harry will do ANYTHING to slow or prevent the Left from going after your guns then you are a fool and a fool that is trying to damn us all.

Remember the tale of the scorpion and the fox crossing the river?

Did the scorpion change its nature?
What happened to the fox?

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

jedwil

07-18-2010, 03:43 PM

Please give me the link that shows that the NRA has officially endorsed Reid.

Marlin T

07-18-2010, 04:39 PM

And this is what the "spirit of compromise" leads to. You buy into it long enough, it becomes more than palatable, it becomes your new strategy.

STOP COMPROMISING!

Stop buying into the NRA's lie, and the government lie, that compromising your rights away is the ONLY way to really retain them. That's ridiculous. It's not reason, it's insanity.

As a wise man once said, "don't pee down my leg and tell me it's raining."

Right, exactly what he said but I will not respond to the NRA topic anymore as that was the reason that I was banned.

But I have made my point in this thread. http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/showthread.php?t=79582

armedandsafe

07-18-2010, 09:41 PM

Please give me the link that shows that the NRA has officially endorsed Reid.

They haven't, this cycle.

http://www.nraila.org/
NRA-PVF ENDORSEMENTS NOT YET ANNOUNCED IN ANY U.S. SENATE RACE FOR NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION
For the record, the NRA-PVF has not yet made an endorsement in the Nevada U.S. Senate race. In fact, there have been no announced endorsements for any U.S. Senate seat for the November general elections—period.

Pops

belercous

07-18-2010, 10:22 PM

No, the GOP is not gonna take back the Senate. Not gonna happen in 2010. The House maybe. Dick Durbin (the next in line) will be worse, trust me, I know. He's from Illinois where I live and his seat is secure. And he's not up for reelection this year.
If we don't compromise, we'll get nothing, or worse, lose what ground we've gained. Better read the McDonalnd decision, there is a lot left on the table. It was no sweeping victory but rather an incremental one.

Quote: "Why in the world would ANYONE in today's age Plan to lose when there is such a anti Lib / socialist / Fascist mood in the nation today."

The answer to that is political reality. Angle is projected to lose to Reid. Just because there is an anti-incumbent sentiment overall, does not mean that holds true in every district. And it also doesn't mean that the GOP is gonna get those votes, its still early.
While a generic Republican might poll a few points higher in some districts, once a named candidate is on the ballot, those numbers are likely to drop. Especially so when those candidates have to start giving specifics. The leadership of the GOP knows this, that is why they will instruct their candidates to speak in vauge terms on the stump. Read the Weekly Standard on this, they had a good article a few weeks back on it. The leaders of the GOP (who arguably know a bit more about politics than the newbies running, such as Angle), know that going to extremes is the kiss of death. It's not the base they need, it is the swing voters. The GOP's best bet is for the Democratic base not to turn out (which many of them won't) and for a poor showing by independents at the polls. Even if every seat up for grabs goes red, the GOP still won't get passed unless Obama is on board.
People (outside of the Republican base) have not yet forgot the GWB years. Come Nov. people are gonna do what they usually do, hold their nose and vote for the least bad alternative.
Fascist? Wtf? You really think this kind of rhetoric is gonna win votes? Do you even know what a fascist is? This is the kind of extremist rhetoric which gives the tea partiers such unfavorable poll ratings. Americans, while they lean just right of center, do not support extremists of either ilk.

Quote; "Besides if you cant win you dont go sucking up to your mortal enemy and beg them to slit your throat instead of fighting them to the bitter end."

Other Americans are your mortal enemy? Do you really think that this kind of thinking is going to win votes? Good luck with that. A big part of the reason Congress has such a low approval rating is because of the partisanship battles. Being obstructionist isn't gonna help the GOP in 2012. And it certainly won't get anything they want passed until then. This is exactly what got Clinton reelected in `96. The GOP wouldn't compromise, Clinton called `em on it and won. And brought more Dems with him.

Half a loaf or nothing. The last president who passed truly liberal legislation was Nixon. Anyone think RMN was a liberal? He did it because that was the political reality of the times, and it got him reelected. Nixon was no dummy or liberal but he knew politics. He compromised (as all presidents do) and was actually not a bad President as far as his governing abilities went, even though he was a despicable person who did petty things he ought'nt have.
I think some people are going to be in for a surprise come Nov. I maybe wrong, but from my studies of politics, it won't be by much.

graehaven

07-19-2010, 03:41 PM

We're only compromising in ONE direction. The direction toward LOSING our rights.

That is UNACCEPTABLE. Maybe you can accept it, many others won't.

You're not going to get the gun haters to compromise at all, and reverse anything. That IS the point.

Bobitis

07-19-2010, 06:13 PM

MagnumFan

07-19-2010, 07:48 PM

Maybe it's time for me to cancel my NRA Membership

graehaven

07-19-2010, 08:02 PM

Forgive my ignorance; just how does one 'compromise' a persons God given rights? Sounds like blasphemy to me.

THEY'RE my rights.
They're MY rights.
They're my RIGHTS.

They are the rights given to me by God.

Who has the right to compromise them?

There's two things you can do with a boat. Throw money at it, or sell it.
I sold it, and never looked back. I view the NRA the same way. In the beginning, the NRA was a shiny new boat with a warranty. Once the warranty is gone, it becomes a life sucking hole in the water. If you throw enough money at it, it will run for quite a while. But there comes a time when it is destined for the bone yard. Was it worth it?

I am in full agreement with you. You are right. They are OUR rights. Unfortunately, the rule of LAW in our land has been corrupted to the point to support a totalitarian government and those in power will use whatever means at their disposal to try to take the rights of people away.

I was trying to point out the route of compromise and where it had led us. I'm sorry for the lapse.

Hardballer

07-20-2010, 03:56 AM

Compromise can only be a losing proposition to someone who already has it all. We have the Constitution. The Constitution is all of it. Every bit. Compromise means we lose. We appease some lily livered, globalist, tree hugging, socialist, fascist liberal, we lose. They have been whittling away at our Liberty and Freedom since the very beginning.

It is kinda like the fellow who; after noticing his surly neighbor put a fence up a foot into his property, looked the other way, appeasing his neighbor because it wasn't that big a deal. and he did not want to rock the boat or cause a ruckus. After all, lets be reasonable. The next year the neighbor did the same thing and again this fellow let it go. not a big deal. Besides, he just did not have time to fight it. Well this went on and on for several years until the neighbors fence was at the fellows bedroom window. He had been sick, or busy or tried to compromise or appease and now he had lost his land and the surly neighbor was still surly and had taken this fellows land.

Now he would have a long, painful, costly fight to get his land back. None of this would have happened if he had just not compromised in the first place.

Nuff said.

This November, 3rd, names like Reid, Schummer, Pelosi, etc. should be all but gone from our thoughts. Nothing but a rapidly fading memory of a failed attempt to destroy America.
For Reid to actually have a lead in Nevada right now is beyond my comprehension.

People, make no mistake, this will be a fight to the end. What happens today will have repercussions that reach far into the future.

Hope we make it.

Hardballer out!

keokeboy

07-20-2010, 08:05 AM

would be nice if the NRA was to post all the reasons why they are endorsing reid.

armedandsafe

07-20-2010, 12:01 PM

http://www.nraila.org/
NRA-PVF ENDORSEMENTS NOT YET ANNOUNCED IN ANY U.S. SENATE RACE FOR NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION
For the record, the NRA-PVF has not yet made an endorsement in the Nevada U.S. Senate race. In fact, there have been no announced endorsements for any U.S. Senate seat for the November general elections—period.

Pops

belercous

07-20-2010, 10:31 PM

Bobitis; If you don't work within the existing framework of gov., you won't get anything. The odds are slim to none that the GOP will regain control of both houses & the executive branch anytime soon. The present situation is an anomoly, same as when W. had both houses. Americans like divided government.
I don't know about "God-given" rights, but if God gave them it would be impossible to take them away as God would not allow this to happen. Well, the inalieable rights laid out in the Declaration (life, liberty, pursuit of hapiness) can & have been taken away from citizens by judicial fiat. "Inalienable" means unable to be taken away, or even given away. Obviuosly, they are not inalienable which would be the case if they were "God-given" or the Declaration were a legal document, which it is not. (The Declaration was a propaganda document written to secure the recognition of our new nation by foriegn countries, most notably France. Which it did. Read it. It mostly rails on against King George, like he was the bad guy. It's not like Parliament passed thiose laws. Oops, yes it was. The King even in 1776 was mostly a figurehead.)
In actual practice, our rights come from the gov., which is beholden to us. We (collectively) determine what those rights are. That is reality. Try basing an argument on the Declaration in a Court case as sole precedent, it don't work.
There is another thing you can do with a boat, borrow it. That's what I do. Of course I'll work on it, but it doesn't hurt my wallet. It's 32' and on the Mississippi right now.
It doesn't make any sense to abandon the NRA. It's the best thing we've got going. If we demand it all it is likely we will only get our victories in SCOTUS. This means Justice Kennedy right now. And what if one of the right-wing justices drops dead tomorrow? The GOP had better have control of the Senate & the White House to appoint another right wing justice. That'll be 2014 at the earliest, and that's not likely even then, politically speaking.
Again, I'm ready to take the 1/2 loaf and consolidate the gains. The court of public approval is where we need to focus on now, SCOTUS tends to follow public sentiment. We have the public's tacit approval now, let's keep it that way and get our gains incrementally. We can get there, but we're not gonna do it in a fell swoop. (If that were the case SCOTUS would have already done it. Again, Justice Kennedy is the "decider" and he's not ready yet to go very far beyond public opinion. I understand that its not "supposed" to work this way, but in reality, it does. Study the Court if you want to see where I'm coming from.)
Hardballer; If one is a socialist one cannot also be a fascist. By definition, that's impossible. And Fascists aren't liberals, they are primarily right wing. Ever hear of Mussolini? Real left-winger, huh? I don't know where you went to college, but I can guarantee that your political science 101 teacher really failed you.
The Constitution means for all practical purposes, (not what you or I want or believe, it means) what 5 people in long black dresses say it means. Again, reality. Sucks, I know, but that is reality. Rail against reality all you want, but it remains reality.
And while I have no doubt that it is beyond your comprehension, unless Harry Reid gets filmed stomping kittens on the Capitol steps, he's gonna get reelected. The tea-partiers handed Harry a gift that is his to lose. He has a war-chest and Angle is an unknown. All Angle can do is go down once her views come out. Reid's not the most popular, but he is a known entity, Angle is not. Nevada voters don't look for extremists. Watch & see, its early and I could be wrong. But even if Reid loses, who do you think the next Senate Majority leader is gonna be? Try Dick Durbin.

Hardballer

07-20-2010, 11:28 PM

Bobitis; If you don't work within the existing framework of gov., you won't get anything.

If you think there is any existing government framework to work within, you will be in for a big shocker, any government that is in existence now has no relation to the one set in place 230 some years ago.

Don't get me wrong, I'll vote. I'll support those I think are worthy. I am still guarding a hope. I also will be taking care of my own business. If you think the elections will make a difference, you have not been reading the right blogs or news sources.

Wishin' and hopin' will not get it done.

What has been done, can not be undone. Good luck if you are in that fantasy-land. As a matter of fact, the worst is yet to come so hang onto your hats.

belercous

07-21-2010, 12:17 AM

Hardballer; Well, there is a government, or so they seem to think when they collect my taxes. I'd say that it is real, government does exist. But, you are correct, however, this is 2010, not 1787. We need to deal with the political reality of today. Either we deal with reality as such, or we lose. Not my choice, but that's what's for lunch.
We can hope & wish all we want, but that changes nothing.
And yes, elections do make a difference.

Hardballer

07-21-2010, 12:49 AM

belercous

07-21-2010, 01:47 AM

O.K., fair enough. Overall, I'm on your side.
We may disagree on politic thoughts, but I believe that we agree that agree on gun control. A steady hand and good eye are requisites. And practice don't hurt none.
Even though I live in Illinois, I have a CCW permit valid in 26 states. And I use it.
We both see the same end vision, but just disagree on how best to get there. Fair enough. Really, with 60+ guns, I'm not the enemy. Perhaps 2 sides of the same coin.

Bobitis

07-21-2010, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by belercous
"Bobitis; If you don't work within the existing framework of gov., you won't get anything".

The 'existing framework' as you call it, is a death sentence for our nation.
Why would anyone choose to support it?

Evil only compromises for it's own benefit. Good compromises for it's inevitible destruction. Why should good compromise anything?

It always ends up in implosion. Evil wins and good loses.

With your logic, it's simply a matter of time before we reach anarchy.
And you think this is our best path? Keep choosing the lesser of 2 evils?
Half a loaf is better than none?:eek:

Half a loaf of bread leaves you in the bread line next week. Is that what you suggest? How long does that last your family?

Let's just compromise all our rights away. Everyone can be on the dole, and no one will be responsible. How does that work? We just went from half a loaf to a slice.:eek:

Compromise.

Yeah, that's the ticket.:mad:

45nut

07-21-2010, 11:04 PM

1) I don't know about "God-given" rights, but if God gave them it would be impossible to take them away as God would not allow this to happen. Well, the inalieable rights laid out in the Declaration (life, liberty, pursuit of hapiness) can & have been taken away from citizens by judicial fiat. "Inalienable" means unable to be taken away, or even given away. Obviuosly, they are not inalienable which would be the case if they were "God-given" or the Declaration were a legal document, which it is not. (The Declaration was a propaganda document written to secure the recognition of our new nation by foriegn countries, most notably France. Which it did. Read it. It mostly rails on against King George, like he was the bad guy. It's not like Parliament passed thiose laws. Oops, yes it was. The King even in 1776 was mostly a figurehead.)
In actual practice, our rights come from the gov., which is beholden to us. We (collectively) determine what those rights are. That is reality. Try basing an argument on the Declaration in a Court case as sole precedent, it don't work.

Hardballer; 2) If one is a socialist one cannot also be a fascist. By definition, that's impossible. And Fascists aren't liberals, they are primarily right wing. Ever hear of Mussolini? Real left-winger, huh? I don't know where you went to college, but I can guarantee that your political science 101 teacher really failed you.

3) The Constitution means for all practical purposes, (not what you or I want or believe, it means) what 5 people in long black dresses say it means. Again, reality. Sucks, I know, but that is reality. Rail against reality all you want, but it remains reality.

4) And while I have no doubt that it is beyond your comprehension, unless Harry Reid gets filmed stomping kittens on the Capitol steps, he's gonna get reelected. The tea-partiers handed Harry a gift that is his to lose. He has a war-chest and Angle is an unknown.

This post reminds me why I have you on ignore, but here goes.

1) Apparently you know nothing about God and how he works. You see, there's this thing called "Free Will" and we can allow a government to take our God given rights, which is pretty much what has happened these last 60 years. Please do a little reading on Natural Laws. This idea means that Government does not give man freedom, but God. Man and government has been taking man's God given rights since the first town council or King as it were.

2) Right and left have different meanings between the US and Europe. Apparently this is where your political science teacher failed you. In Europe the Right Wing (totalitarian government) is the Left Wing in America. I'll break it down for the impaired among us. With Totalitarian Government on the Left side of the spectrum in America, Fascists are in fact on the Left, along with Marxists, Communists and currently, the DNC. And no they are not Liberals in the strictest sense of the word, but since they believe in Government controlling business and our everyday lives, they facilitate the same end result, namely loss of freedom for The People.

I guess you will be licking boots and enjoying your chains, while the rest of us are living and maybe dying in the fight to preserve freedom.

3) I don't know what country you think you live in, but the U. S. Constitution means just what it says, no matter what some liberal wacko THINKS it means. Words have meaning and the words of the Constitution are plain and simple. Get rid of the a-holes that think it's a living document and the problem is solved. Your reality must be very very sad and lonely.

4) Harry Reid will loose. Remember that and weep when your boy goes down in flames. You really shouldn't take such a nasty attitude with folks who disagree with you and are right.

No matter where liberal bloviation comes from, it is distasteful.

armedandsafe

07-22-2010, 01:14 PM

It is starting to get a bit personal, folks. Let's remember the rule of "NO PERSONAL ATTACKS."

Pops

Bobitis

07-22-2010, 05:38 PM

Thanks Pops.

I read this this morning and thought for sure we'd have another thread closure.

belercous

07-23-2010, 12:08 AM

45 Nut; I have no idea about "God" or any other imaginary being, too include unicorns. I'm agnostic.
But going off of logic, let's see. God knows all. As such, God knows what his creations will do before he creates them. Free wiil? Then God doesn't know all. Myth #1 destroyed about God knowing all.
Or if, God does know all, he knows what his creations will do (No free will, or God knows what each of us will do with our free will. As such, there cannot be free will as we can't go against God. If we could go against God, then free will exists, and God does not know the future. As such, God is not all knowing.). Pick one. Can't have both as they are mutually exlusive.
God is all powerful. Well, if he's all powerful, he can't be all knowing. If God knows the future, he can't change the future, otherwise he wouldn't know it. If God can't change the future, he's not all powerful. Again, mutually exclusive, pick one, can't have both.
"Natural law," as in what one can get in a state of nature, means might is right. One has no "right" to anything they cannot defend from someone else.
I guess my political science teacher failed me, as yeah, Germany, The U.K., France, etc., are all totalitarian dictarorships. Europeans are more left than Americans (and Australia, Iran, Afgahnistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, et. al.,), buit overall, we are quite right wing. Not that this is always bad, which it is not. Personally, I am a fiscal conservative. This is only sound money managment. But then again, the people of France & Germany weren't hurt by our Great Recession.
Please Google "Fascist" and see what you get. They are mostly right-wing, with some social provisions thrown in to win over the populace. Lemme break it down for the slow; Corporatism & Government. Kinda like the economic system of "merchantilism." Google that too.
And hey, while we're at it, in the "strictest" sense of the word, American Conservatives are "liberals." Google "classical liberalism" and tell me different.
Again, the Constitution means (for all intents & purpose) what 5 people in long black dresses say it means. I wasn't there, and neither was no one else alive today. And even if they were, not everyone back then had the same understanding. That is why the Constitution was written in broad terms, the specifics to be hashed-out later.
Good luck with the Harry Reid loss thing. (I'm assuming you meant "lose," not "loose" as written.) I'm just going off of the polling and historic voter tendencies. Obviously you know something others don't. November will tell.
I dunno, but my polisci grades did get me a scholarship to law school. If that's failure, I'm all about failure. It works for me.
And Bobitis: Compromise is the way our government works. If we each side didn't compromise, nothing would get done. This is by design.

Pops; I don't take anything said as a personal attack, unless it was me. Then sorry, I don't mean to personally attack a fellow American. We may disagree, but it's certainly not personal on my behalf. I believe we all have the same goals, just different ways of reaching them. I would never do a treasonous act ala Jane Fonda. We can disagree among ourselves, but not to the world.

Time for a new thread?

lentz

07-23-2010, 12:23 AM

One thing is of a certainty,there will be no athiest in hell