For those who think the NRA is crazy to give money to Reid

[CarmelHP]

The NRA has to look at the entire political calculus as to what is best for stopping anti-gunners. Though Reid is repugnant, he's 100% better than Lugar on gun issues. He's 1000% better than this guy, our most implacable enemy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/us/politics/29schumer.html

 

[melensdad]

Yup.

Long term strategy is what is at play behind the NRA's moves. Can't fault them for that.

Calling Chuck Schumer a piece of is simply an insult to yet it is very likely that Schumer will be deciding the agenda of the Senate, which means its going to be virtually impossible to get pro-gun bills on the floor, let alone get a vote on them.

 

[chraland51]

I agree that Reid is much better than Chuckie Shumer on firearms related issues. At least on this topic, he does seem to listen to his constituents to get their votes. I would be sick to see Chuckie become the Senate majority leader. However, on just about every other matter of imporatance to me, Harry Reid has taken a diametrically opposed position. I try to not be a one-issue voter. For example, personally, I am pro-life, but would vote for a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life candidate if I agreed with the pro-choice candidate on all or nearly all of the other areas important to me and happened to disagree with most of the other positions held by the pro-life candidate. Harry Reid is a nasty person in my opinion and must by voted out of office before he does more damage to our country. I do not think that the NRA is doing the country a service by promoting people like Harry Reid in any way based on his positons of many other matters of importance just because he happens to have what the NRA considers to be a good voting record on gun-related matters. Many will likely vote for Reid on that basis alone. We are not likely to find what we consider to be perfect candidates that agree with all of our positions. Yes, the original constitutional interpretation of the second amendment is very important to me, but so are a lot of other controversial items for debate.

 

[mrjarrell]

David Codrea talked about this in his most recent article and made a good point. "So what?" So what if Reid loses and Schumer takes over? Unless all of the political pundits are dead wrong (and it could happen, but it's unlikely) the House will go to the gop. If that occurs then no anti-gun legislation is going to get through anyway, (unless we get the usual type of compromising republicrats in there). After November we are probably looking at a deadlocked Congress. Was NRA's strategy right? If you look at it from one angle, yes. Looked at from the angle of what's really best for liberty, (which doesn't concern them, since they are 2A only) and restoring some semblance of balance then the answer is no. NRA was actually shortsighted. In the end it's not going to matter. The voters, not the NRA will decide things.

 

[dross]

As I've explained many times before, the NRA must endorse pro-gun politicians from both sides of the aisle to have power. They have a carrot and a stick. If in a lean year for pro gun issues a Democrat votes pro-gun, they can't just abandon him the next year when a Republican comes along. The NRA has the power to get people voted out, and it can sway close elections. It would be giving all that up if it behaved in a purely ideological way, or worse, began to consider other issues other than the 2nd Amendment.

You can bet that the leadership of the NRA wouldn't vote for a Harry Reid, but the organization must.

Politics and philosophy are two different games, and must be played differently.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

It's great that they take a stand and a long-view on their strategy. I won't support their choices, however.

 

[mrjarrell]

Here's a piece that addresses this very subject. Looks like NRA's stance might just have a cost if the republicrats do win in this go around.
Friendly Fire: Republicans Fume at NRA's Endorsement of Democrats - The Note

 

[rambone]

So who here would personally donate to Harry Reid? If our gun rights truly depend on him then it should be an easy answer.

 

[dross]

So who here would personally donate to Harry Reid? If our gun rights truly depend on him then it should be an easy answer.

I would never vote for Harry Reid and our gun rights don't depend on him. The NRA is a single issue organization, and they have constraints based on regulations and long term outlook that you and I don't have to worry about.

You're a smart guy, this is something you should learn and understand. If the NRA operated according to the way you and some others would deem as pure, they wouldn't be effective. It's as simple as that.

You're like the British officers who thought it was cowardly of the Americans to hide behind trees and rocks and fences. The Americans were just wrong, and the British wouldn't stoop to their tactics.

 

[SavageEagle]

I don't give a flying fadoodle if Harry Reid IS pro-gun. If Hitler was Pro-Gun, would you have supported the NRA supporting him? I don't care if the NRA is a single issue organization. If they're willing to sacrifice the rest of the Constitution to save gun rights, they are no friend of anyone here. Unless, of course, all you care about is gun rights and to hell with everything else.

 

[Security122]

I DO NOT support the NRA supporting Harry Reid. Reid needs to go home. However, I do support the NRA. I know some will say that means I also support Reid, but I just DON'T.

 

[SavageEagle]

There's only one area in which I support the NRA. And that's in their shooting education and such. That's about the only thing they're good for anymore.

 

[Ogre]

There's only one area in which I support the NRA. And that's in their shooting education and such. That's about the only thing they're good for anymore.

THIS^^^^