NRA singing praises of harry reid.

[lethal dose]

Has anyone seen the article in the newest American rifleman about Reid securing land and funds for a new nra range? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for shooting ranges, but... it worries me that this may be a political stunt on Reid's part and that the nra may be funding his career with my money. I'm sure senator Reid is a good guy, but I completely disagree with the vast majority of his politics, namely the healthcare bill. Does anyone know a detailed record of his past votes on 2nd ammendment issues? Thoughts? Comments?

[thopkins22]

Gun Owners of America rated him an F.

http://gunowners.org/111thsrat.htm

And a brief voting record. http://gunowners.capwiz.com/bio/id/370&submit.x=16&submit.y=21&submit=go

[Deadcenter45]

I threw up in my mouth a little when I read that today, the way they were fawning over him.


I feel ill.

[SteyrAUG]

To be fair McCain's politics on many issues aren't that much different than Reids.

That said, this isn't the first time the NRA has gotten all warm and snuggly with a communist who has supported some piece of pro gun legislation.

On one hand I understand they ally with those who support them on issues in order to encourage that support, but on the other I wish they'd be a little more considerate about who they jump into bed with.

I might be overly idealistic, but I think the gun grabbers should be shunned regardless of any occasional support of pro gun efforts or declarations of being a gun owner.

[10MMGary]

I didn't like it either, seemed so staged and phoney. Good thing the magazine is free with membership.

[MassMark]

Reid is a tool - a bastard to liberty and he's desperately trying to hang onto his career and the subsequent power that comes with it. Anyone who sees him for anything more than that it seriously delusional.

Likewise, the National Rifle Association continues to position itself as a champion of the 2nd Amendment - and in many ways they are. It would be a mistake however to view them as the last wall in the fortress. From their fat-cat salaries, to gleaming office towers, (one Virginian referred to sarcastically as "The Mansion"), the NRA is a business - a profitable one, before anything. They continually push cheap Chinese crap on their membership, flood mailboxes with junk mail - begging for donations and are not only in bed with the likes of Harry Reid, but also Tim Leatherman - who is not exactly the 2nd Amendment's best pal.

The NRA is simply superb at training, firearms history, events and education. However, I would hardly rate them an 'A' in protecting and defending the principles of our forefathers. They are a: "if it looks good, it is good" organization. I was at the Second Amendment March, unlike 99% of the rest of the shooting community, who decry as keyboard commandos the erosion of our rights, but won't dare leave their 9-5, big screens and comfy computer chairs to dare stand up for it. You know what they say about excuses....

The National Rifle Associations involvement, (or lack) in this event was metaphor for their organization as a whole: Stay far enough out on the fringes for people to notice, but do as little as possible to risk your rep. Yes indeed, the NRA was at the Second Amendment March, but they where whoring for memberships and not actively involved in any way, shape or form. They set up their membership brothel well away from the event - off on their own in the very corner of the area. No one left the booth and the National Rifle Association offered ZERO speakers for the event. No officials whatsoever spoke throughout the entire day. Their only advertisement was a blurb on their website - ZERO mention in ANY of their publications prior to the event. They had hats, t-shirts and stickers aplenty, but that was only for the shills who where shelling out hard-earned for memberships. Meanwhile, members of GOA, JFPO, RKBA, VCDL, etc - were wandering through the crowd, engaging marchers, handing out stickers, brochures and offering directions and advice.

The NRA was indeed there and I suppose they can at least be given credit for not selling out as badly as the ultimate scumbag opportunist Ted Nugent, (who took credit for spawning this march but could not be bothered to show up - for lack of an adequate appearance fee). They also made more of an appearance than Fox News, (who didn't even send a cub reporter), but I guess that's my point. The National Rifle Association puts itself out there as something it's not - and many folks just swallow it and pay up. They show up at an event to pacify the masses - scream from the rooftops about the success of DC-Heller, when they actually tried to derail it. Sat back for the '86' NFA, '89' Import Ban and '94' AWB - throwing masses of shooters under the bus. And yet, so many hold the NRA as omnipotent - "Oh my MassMark, how could you say anything bad about the only organization who is defending our rights?" <insert shudder here>.

I say, keep sipping on the fruit punch and wait for the tire tracks again, or start shaking the trees within the National Rifle Association. In anyone needs a wake-up call as much as the DC politico, it's the ivory tower that is the NRA.....

[ra2bach]

reading that article in the NRA magazine disturbed me for several reasons...

[Rider79]

One of the reasons Reid supported that range is to eventually outlaw shooting in the desert outside of town. Another reason is to shut down the private outdoor shooting ranges like Desert Sportsmans. The Clark County Range has all kinds of goofy rules, like you can't shoot human shaped targets (includes B27 targets, I believe) and no movement is allowed on the range, the most you can do is draw and fire from what I understand. Reid acts pro-gun because he has to with his constituents here, the only benefit I think it gives is that, with his position in the Senate, he can block anti-gun legislation from reaching the floor. If he wins in November, I don't think he'll care too much about even doing that. His pandering to the pro-gun crowd still doesn't make up for the rest of his left-wing policies in my book. If you think that article is sad, you should see the video of him on his website at the ribbon cutting ceremony for the range. He talks about how he used to carry a gun when he worked for the Nevada Gaming Commission, and he talks about concealed carry. You can also see Shelly Berkley and Dina Titus in the video, our 2 anti-gun congresscritters. Unfortunately, due to union support, I think Reid can still pull out a win, even with his terrible approval ratings.

[rubberneck]

Yet another reason to justify why I walked away from the NRA a couple of years ago.

[rifleman2000]

Yet another reason to justify why I walked away from the NRA a couple of years ago.

I did not like the article but it is not enough to justify me walking away from the organization that has done more for gun ownership than any other organization, by far.

[thopkins22]

I did not like the article but it is not enough to justify me walking away from the organization that has done more for gun ownership than any other organization, by far.

I think that the NRA has seen what rifles and handguns are selling at rates far beyond hunting rifles and are beginning to get it. For a long time however, it felt as though their policy was to guarantee nobody ever took my bolt action 30-06 and double barreled shotgun, at the expense of every other gun in my safe.

[rubberneck]

I did not like the article but it is not enough to justify me walking away from the organization that has done more for gun ownership than any other organization, by far.

If getting into bed with a dirt bag like Ried was the only issue I would agree but this is the same organization that did everything in their power to prevent the Heller case from being heard by the SCOTUS. They fight the easy fights but won't lead on the tough ones.

[rifleman2000]

If getting into bed with a dirt bag like Ried was the only issue I would agree but this is the same organization that did everything in their power to prevent the Heller case from being heard by the SCOTUS. They fight the easy fights but won't lead on the tough ones.

I would argue that their strategy is effective.

[HES]

I think that the NRA has seen what rifles and handguns are selling at rates far beyond hunting rifles and are beginning to get it. For a long time however, it felt as though their policy was to guarantee nobody ever took my bolt action 30-06 and double barreled shotgun, at the expense of every other gun in my safe.
And I think you just nailed it. I think they are getting it too, but I have to wonder if is just the publishing side of the house that is getting it or if the leadership is getting on board. The NSSF at least is getting it, holding work shops for writers trying to get them into the black rifle / pistol game and stop suing the whole "assault rifle" moniker.

[rifleman2000]

People need to look at the 90s verus today; such as compare CCW states, 'assault' weapon bans, how guns were constantly attacked by the media, etc, and then ask how much of that change was influenced by the NRA.

Things are much better, and even anti-gun politicians are afraid to raise the issue.

[TriggerFish]

... or start shaking the trees within the National Rifle Association. In anyone needs a wake-up call as much as the DC politico, it's the ivory tower that is the NRA.....

I certainly agree with this. I was a friend of Neal Knox and even ran for NRA Director when Heston first ran. I got 33,000+ votes, normally way more than you need to win... but not on the Heston coronation year. That was the year Neal's slate of reform candidates ("work horses, not show horses") were vilified by the NRA establishment.

I am still a Patron Life Member and my 2 year old grandson is a Life Member.

The Reid article made me sick too.

[TriumphRat675]

The NRA is a politically savvy single-issue organization and is smart enough not to piss in the Senate Majority Leader's Cheerios if he will help advance their agenda. There is nothing wrong with that. In politics you work on some issues with people who oppose you on others. I don't really see the problem here.

The NRA is coming around to focus more on self-defense, shooting sports and tactical mindset from the old hunting mentality, but these things take time. The majority of gun owners do not participate in shooting sports or think too deeply about self-defense, and would probably find the hobbies of most people on this board a little strange. We are not the majority in the nation or even among gun owners...

[rubberneck]

The NRA is a politically savvy single-issue organization and is smart enough not to piss in the Senate Majority Leader's Cheerios if he will help advance their agenda. There is nothing wrong with that. In politics you work on some issues with people who oppose you on others. I don't really see the problem here.


This is not your typical election year. Reid is fighting for his political life in a state where the NRA has considerable sway. As a whole Reid is no friend of gun owners and his re-election will set us back far more than the NRA gained on this single issue. YMMV.

[Artos]

I did not like the article but it is not enough to justify me walking away from the organization that has done more for gun ownership than any other organization, by far.

Big money and big politics make for strange bed-fellows...i doubt only a handful of folks on this forum approve of Reid but why not use him to have a really nice range on federal land for generations. Would it have been better to not have pursued this because reid is a worm on all other topics?? Reid will be out of office soon enough and this range / NRA will not save him imho. Regardless, how long will this range be available to shooters?? Maybe for decades after reid is an old man and gone...seems like a wise move to me & I hope it sticks in the craw of every fellow libtard friend of reid who hates guns.

Other articles in my American Hunter:

Hunting is Saving Africa's Wildlife

A win for International Conservation

Common Sense BATFE Reform Gathers Steam

Court Dismisses Heller II

Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish Amendments on Statewide Ballots This Year

End of The AR Near, Says Anti-Gun Activist

Brady Keeps Playing Losing Hands



I'm a lifer and spend my yearly $$$ at the Friends of the NRA Banquet. Everytime I see fellow hunters and shooters down the NRA, it makes me feel I need to send a little something extra. Frustrating!!

...rant over

[SteyrAUG]

People need to look at the 90s verus today; such as compare CCW states, 'assault' weapon bans, how guns were constantly attacked by the media, etc, and then ask how much of that change was influenced by the NRA.

Things are much better, and even anti-gun politicians are afraid to raise the issue.

On some issues...yes, on others...no.

Things like CCW, absolutely. But when it comes to black rifles and NFA stuff they are still red headed step children. At least in the 90s your parts kit included an original barrel.

[Irish]

i doubt only a handful of folks on this forum approve of Reid but why not use him to have a really nice range on federal land for generations. Would it have been better to not have pursued this because reid is a worm on all other topics?? Reid will be out of office soon enough and this range / NRA will not save him imho. Regardless, how long will this range be available to shooters?? Maybe for decades after reid is an old man and gone...seems like a wise move to me & I hope it sticks in the craw of every fellow libtard friend of reid who hates guns.

The range is set up for mostly shotgun shooters, skeet & trap, from everything I've read. My main reason for not going to the range is it's so far north that it might as well be in Utah. This type of range is definitely not conducive to our type of shooting and is definitely more for the "sportsmen".

[10MMGary]

Yet another reason to justify why I walked away from the NRA a couple of years ago.

Just my humble opinion and something to think about. I was once taught that a truly righteous decision needs no justification. But we do need you(all of you)now more than ever.

[Dienekes]

By the time my new grandson is old enough to shoot the single-shot Marlin .22 rifle I recently bought him there won't be enough disposable income for him to buy a box of ammo for it. Reid and the other geezer congressmen will be gone but the unsustainable debts they gave us will live on. :mad:

I would much rather go shoot on BLM land and be left the hell alone than to fawn all over doofus politicians.

From either party.

[Artos]

The range is set up for mostly shotgun shooters, skeet & trap, from everything I've read. My main reason for not going to the range is it's so far north that it might as well be in Utah. This type of range is definitely not conducive to our type of shooting and is definitely more for the "sportsmen".

I still shoot some sporting clays but most of my scatter-gunning is tied to bird hunting now. Honestly, it wouldn't matter to me if the land was used for air rifles, clays, pistol, 3 gun or even a hunting preserve if it encourages new participation into any of the shooting sports. I just hope the facility will see lots of use & if it gains some new nra members and new gun owners, then I really can't see this but anything other than a win. Lord knows we need to grow all areas of our shooting arenas.

[Irish]

I just hope the facility will see lots of use & if it gains some new nra members and new gun owners, then I really can't see this but anything other than a win. Lord knows we need to grow all areas of our shooting arenas.

I agree with you but I don't see it getting lots of use. The location sucks for the vast majority of the residents of the valley especially considering we're surrounded by desert.

Here's their website: http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/depts/parks/locations/Pages/shooting_park.aspx

[Renegade]

NRA is single issue and Reid is a reliable pro-gun vote. He has passed more pro-gun bills than any Senate Leader in the past several decades, with zero anti-gun votes. There will never be an AW ban as long as he is there. Politics is kooky like that.

[Irish]

NRA is single issue and Reid is a reliable pro-gun vote. He has passed more pro-gun bills than any Senate Leader in the past several decades, with zero anti-gun votes. There will never be an AW ban as long as he is there. Politics is kooky like that.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Harry_Reid

He has a mixed record on gun control, voting against the ban on assault weapons and in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but in favor of the Brady Bill and background checks at gun shows.

[Renegade]

Yes, he is a reliable pro-gun vote, as opposed to a guaranteed pro-gun vote.

AFAIK, there are no Senators that have a perfect pro-gun record.

[Artos]

I agree with you but I don't see it getting lots of use. The location sucks for the vast majority of the residents of the valley especially considering we're surrounded by desert.

Here's their website: http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/depts/parks/locations/Pages/shooting_park.aspx

I don't know anything about the surrounding area amigo...it would certainly be disheartening if it does not prosper.

Our local area outdoor rifle and pistol club got a grant from the NRA recently and the improvements are very nice so far.

[Mjolnir]

Yet another reason to justify why I walked away from the NRA a couple of years ago.
Ding, ding ding!!

[syclone170]

for Pete's sake, if it wasn't for the NRA, we would all be shooting single shots period. They are the only Pro-gun organization that has any clout with the politicians...

[thopkins22]

for Pete's sake, if it wasn't for the NRA, we would all be shooting single shots period. They are the only Pro-gun organization that has any clout with the politicians...

Because they have by far the largest membership. Hell keep your NRA membership(I have,) but also join GOA/JPFO/whomever else.

The politicians don't pay attention to the NRA because it's the NRA, they do it because it's a large group of voters and has resources to make ads and inform voters about how it views politicians.

[MassMark]

for Pete's sake, if it wasn't for the NRA, we would all be shooting single shots period. They are the only Pro-gun organization that has any clout with the politicians...

Really? Highlight how much clout the National Rifle Association slung about in 1968, 1986, 1988, 1994... Check those dates - they all represent MAJOR assaults on our 2nd Amendment rights to which the National Rifle Association largely did NOTHING.... If anything, they used those events to whore for more memberships....There's a great bottom line in leading the oppressed....Just ask the Democrats....

[syclone170]

Really? Highlight how much clout the National Rifle Association slung about in 1968, 1986, 1988, 1994... Check those dates - they all represent MAJOR assaults on our 2nd Amendment rights to which the National Rifle Association largely did NOTHING.... If anything, they used those events to whore for more memberships....There's a great bottom line in leading the oppressed....Just ask the Democrats.... You know if you think you could do any better, jump right in. It's really amusing that some people bitch like crazy about the NRA, and don't realize that organizations like the NRA changes leadership often and changes are made all the time with personnel at the front office. And you also seem to forget that WE are the NRA, and can vote out all the people we don't want in the leadership. Those dates are long gone but some people keep bringing up the past.

[lethal dose]

Hey. Let's not ugly up the thread by starting with the bickering back and forth. Mass mark brought up a valid point and I think he was sincere and not offensive with his delivery. While I am grateful for the nra, it does seem like they do a lot of whoring... have you checked your mailbox or email lately?

[MassMark]

You know if you think you could do any better, jump right in. It's really amusing that some people bitch like crazy about the NRA, and don't realize that organizations like the NRA changes leadership often and changes are made all the time with personnel at the front office. And you also seem to forget that WE are the NRA, and can vote out all the people we don't want in the leadership. Those dates are long gone but some people keep bringing up the past.

The past is the present.... I'm not bitching like crazy about the NRA, in fact - I praised their leadership in training, firearms safety, education and history. What I did however point out is the National Rifle Associations great failings when it comes to something they have positioned themselves as a force in: 2nd Amendment rights. As far as to whether or not 'I' could do better, it remains to be seen. I do know one thing for certain: I do a lot to advocate and stand up for my God-given 2nd Amendment rights...This is me:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/MassMark/100_2135JPG.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/MassMark/100_2172.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/MassMark/2ndAmendmentmarch075.jpg

I took a 9-hour bus ride in the middle of the night to stand up for your 2nd Amendment rights. Perhaps you can share a pic of you that day? We arrived to not the millions of people on every internet gun forum who said: "Hell yeah - I'll be there", but to a couple thousand patriots and snipers on the rooftops. The NRA was there as well - not participating in any way, shape or form - but whoring for memberships - off on their own.

As far as leadership changes and the ability of members to vote out those who are not worthy of their position as champions of the Second Amendment - check your NRA history - it's not as simple as you make it out to be.

If you would like to debate my 'perceptions' of the NRA's short comings, I am at your service. Please be versed and ready to engage on the NRA's actions, (or lack) in the following areas:

- 1968 Gun Control Act

- 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act - with special attention to The Huges Amendment

- The 1989 Assault Weapon Import Control Act

- The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act

- The NRA's abandonment of 2nd Amendment fights in New Jersey, California, Massachusetts and other states.

- The NRA's attempt to derail DC vs Heller.

- The NRA giving away Leatherman tools, when Tim Leatherman is not pro 2A

- The NRA selling cheap, Chinese crap to it's membership and marketing 'NRA Optics' which are also made in The People's Republic of China.

All of these, (and a few more) are prime examples of the National Rifle Association's willingness to "wheel and deal" when it comes to our God-given right to keep and bear arms. The real problem lies within the membership who still hold the NRA as omnipotent - beyond reproach, when what really needs to happen is more members standing up and to quote you: "bitch like crazy". Rather than build multi-million dollar office complexes and pumping membership money into China, the NRA needs to circle it's wagons, choose a side, roll up their collective sleeves and fight - for real.

If I could "jump in and do better", my main mission would be to see that the National Rifle Association would one day soon be out of the 2nd Amendment business and back in the training, history, event and education business where it all began. The Institute for Legislative Action would cease to exist. Why? Because at last, the NRA would pour all it's resources into achieving victory - rather than pumping it's fist in the air to one side, while it pats the other on the backside...

[rubberneck]

You know if you think you could do any better, jump right in. It's really amusing that some people bitch like crazy about the NRA, and don't realize that organizations like the NRA changes leadership often and changes are made all the time with personnel at the front office. And you also seem to forget that WE are the NRA, and can vote out all the people we don't want in the leadership. Those dates are long gone but some people keep bringing up the past.

No offense but I can't imagine a single civil rights organization that would actively work to kill the single most important court case in the history of it's existence. The NRA did everything in it's power to try and kill Heller and only joined in when those efforts failed and the court agreed to hear the case. Have you ever asked yourself why?

If they had their way we wouldn't have won the Heller case and we wouldn't be on the verge of winning McDonald, but they'd still be asking for money telling us that only they stand between us and the gun grabbers. There was a time when the NRA was a real advocacy group but now it is run by a bunch of corporate types who care more about milking the cash cow than fighting for our rights. Thanks but no thanks.

If you want to send them your cash knock yourself out. I'd rather donate my money to help men like Alan Gura who are actually out there fighting the good fight.

[syclone170]

No offense but I can't imagine a single civil rights organization that would actively work to kill the single most important court case in the history of it's existence. The NRA did everything in it's power to try and kill Heller and only joined in when those efforts failed and the court agreed to hear the case. Have you ever asked yourself why?

If they had their way we wouldn't have won the Heller case and we wouldn't be on the verge of winning McDonald, but they'd still be asking for money telling us that only they stand between us and the gun grabbers. There was a time when the NRA was a real advocacy group but now it is run by a bunch of corporate types who care more about milking the cash cow than fighting for our rights. Thanks but no thanks.

If you want to send them your cash knock yourself out. I'd rather donate my money to help men like Alan Gura who are actually out there fighting the good fight. Yes, because they wanted a better case to go to court with, DC is not a state and they wanted a better city to argue their case. But, when it looked like the case was going to be heard anyway, they jumped right in and helped. In this case, it came out alright, now they are taking other cities to court since the Heller case did indeed come out in our favor.
You have the right not to donate or be a member of course, but the other pro-gun organizations just don't have the clout to have politicians even listen to them, they just ignore them. But, to each their own..

[rubberneck]

Yes, because they wanted a better case to go to court with, DC is not a state and they wanted a better city to argue their case. But, when it looked like the case was going to be heard anyway, they jumped right in and helped. In this case, it came out alright, now they are taking other cities to court since the Heller case did indeed come out in our favor.
You have the right not to donate or be a member of course, but the other pro-gun organizations just don't have the clout to have politicians even listen to them, they just ignore them. But, to each their own..

Baloney. They have had the chance over the years to bring a suit in Federal court over the restrictive gun laws in NYC or Chicago and never could be bothered to do so, and they had plenty of people willing to bring the suit.

Their stated reason for opposing Gura's suit initially was because they didn't think he could win not because they wanted to go after a state first. Why is it the NRA with it's vast resources and thousands of attorneys at it's disposal is always one step behind an attorney from a firm that only employs a grand total of two lawyers? After Gura won Heller how is it he beat them to court with McDonald? Where the hell are they and why the hell aren't they leading from the front? Instead a 38 year old lawyer has shown more leadership and ultimately done more to secure our rights than the NRA.

[John_Wayne777]

Baloney. They have had the chance over the years to bring a suit in Federal court over the restrictive gun laws in NYC or Chicago and never could be bothered to do so, and they had plenty of people willing to bring the suit.


...probably because they were afraid of a bad ruling. Rulings that wouldn't be favorable to the 2nd amendment would be very, very, VERY dangerous in a way that a lot of people don't understand if they haven't studied law.

The fact is that our federal, state, and local governments are by in large OPENLY HOSTILE to the rights we hold under the 2nd amendment. That includes the courts.

I've lamented many times our current social structure which takes the 4th amendment rights of pedophiles and terrorists more seriously than the 2nd amendment rights of people who've never done anything wrong...but that's still the structure we're left with. The courts are not generally sympathetic to a pro-gun argument because they are generally going to side with some perceived need for government control in that arena under the notion of promoting safety and security. That the laws proposed do not objectively accomplish either goal is irrelevant.

The game of politics and law is chess, folks....not checkers. It's a complicated game with fuzzy rules and some pretty stiff penalties.

Do I think that the NRA has played the game perfectly? Absolutely not...but sometimes there is merit in playing not to lose.

[ohiorifleman]

...probably because they were afraid of a bad ruling. Rulings that wouldn't be favorable to the 2nd amendment would be very, very, VERY dangerous in a way that a lot of people don't understand if they haven't studied law.

The fact is that our federal, state, and local governments are by in large OPENLY HOSTILE to the rights we hold under the 2nd amendment. That includes the courts.

I've lamented many times our current social structure which takes the 4th amendment rights of pedophiles and terrorists more seriously than the 2nd amendment rights of people who've never done anything wrong...but that's still the structure we're left with. The courts are not generally sympathetic to a pro-gun argument because they are generally going to side with some perceived need for government control in that arena under the notion of promoting safety and security. That the laws proposed do not objectively accomplish either goal is irrelevant.

The game of politics and law is chess, folks....not checkers. It's a complicated game with fuzzy rules and some pretty stiff penalties.

Do I think that the NRA has played the game perfectly? Absolutely not...but sometimes there is merit in playing not to lose.

Wish I could have put it that eloquently. As for the 2nd amendment march- thank-you for going but I personally feel marches aren't where it's at today- no matter how many people show up it always seems to be marginalized in the news- even Fox news- the only coverage I saw was on CNN and it was a static camera pointed at the stage, showing a few people with Gadsden flags milling around. My preference is to attend my official's events whether it be the golf outing last Fri. for my state rep, meeting with Boehner's staff at the local town hall or making the occasional telephone call when necessary. I feel it is that personal contact that makes a difference. I am an Endowment NRA member- but I have never asked them to do all of my talking for me. In my opinion they are another tool in the toolbox. I did have to clean up the bathroom after the Reid lovefest though.

[rubberneck]

...probably because they were afraid of a bad ruling. Rulings that wouldn't be favorable to the 2nd amendment would be very, very, VERY dangerous in a way that a lot of people don't understand if they haven't studied law.

The fact is that our federal, state, and local governments are by in large OPENLY HOSTILE to the rights we hold under the 2nd amendment. That includes the courts.

I've lamented many times our current social structure which takes the 4th amendment rights of pedophiles and terrorists more seriously than the 2nd amendment rights of people who've never done anything wrong...but that's still the structure we're left with. The courts are not generally sympathetic to a pro-gun argument because they are generally going to side with some perceived need for government control in that arena under the notion of promoting safety and security. That the laws proposed do not objectively accomplish either goal is irrelevant.

The game of politics and law is chess, folks....not checkers. It's a complicated game with fuzzy rules and some pretty stiff penalties.

Do I think that the NRA has played the game perfectly? Absolutely not...but sometimes there is merit in playing not to lose.

I suppose if you were so inclined you can come up with a legitimate excuse for avoiding doing anything. While the NRA has been playing chess and contemplating their next non-move the anti-gunners have been attacking on all fronts.

Losing in court is always a possibility but that has never stopped anti gun groups from bringing lawsuits or passing bs gun laws. If you really believe that your cause is just than fight for it. If you lose in Court you turn to the legislative process for redress. I can't imagine the ACLU being shy about litigating an important issue, and they lose with some regularity but it doesn't keep them on the sidelines like the NRA.

[TriumphRat675]

Losing in court is always a possibility but that has never stopped anti gun groups from bringing lawsuits or passing bs gun laws.

With all due respect, I don't think you understand the realities of the political and legal situations here. You won't be able to understand the NRA's position unless you know that until very recently the prevailing academic and judicial interpretation of the 2nd amendment - and I'm badly paraphrasing here - was that it protected the rights of state militias, NOT individuals, to bear arms. It took a sea change in academic legal thinking to get the paradigm to the point where today the accepted consensus view is that it protects an individual right. 20 years ago that was not the case.

That said, if 20 years ago the NRA or anyone else had brought the Heller suit and taken it up to the highest court in the land, there is a fair chance they would have lost and the Brady Bunch's interpretation of the 2nd would be stare decisis - an incorrectly decided case that would probably be upheld as precedent for the forseeable future. That means Game Over and precious few limits on state legislatures from banning individual ownership of firearms. The NRA was right not to take that chance. If they got gun-shy over Heller, that's understandable if not commendable. Gura is a genius because it worked, but if it hadn't...

You say that if you get a bad court decision you can turn to the legislature. Fair enough. That would have worked in Texas. It wouldn't have worked in New Jersey. The NRA's "do nothing" approach - which focused on local and state governments to great effect - at the least didn't screw us all before the political and academic tide turned to the point that Heller was even a possibility.

I don't think the anti's have been that successful on all fronts. the AWB sunsetted, the Brady bill isn't exactly a catastrophe, no gun show loophole closing law has been passed, and more states than ever issue CCW permits - and Heller is the cherry on top. We're doing pretty well.

[syclone170]

With all due respect, I don't think you understand the realities of the political and legal situations here. You won't be able to understand the NRA's position unless you know that until very recently the prevailing academic and judicial interpretation of the 2nd amendment - and I'm badly paraphrasing here - was that it protected the rights of state militias, NOT individuals, to bear arms. It took a sea change in academic legal thinking to get the paradigm to the point where today the accepted consensus view is that it protects an individual right. 20 years ago that was not the case.

That said, if 20 years ago the NRA or anyone else had brought the Heller suit and taken it up to the highest court in the land, there is a fair chance they would have lost and the Brady Bunch's interpretation of the 2nd would be stare decisis - an incorrectly decided case that would probably be upheld as precedent for the forseeable future. That means Game Over and precious few limits on state legislatures from banning individual ownership of firearms. The NRA was right not to take that chance. If they got gun-shy over Heller, that's understandable if not commendable. Gura is a genius because it worked, but if it hadn't...

You say that if you get a bad court decision you can turn to the legislature. Fair enough. That would have worked in Texas. It wouldn't have worked in New Jersey. The NRA's "do nothing" approach - which focused on local and state governments to great effect - at the least didn't screw us all before the political and academic tide turned to the point that Heller was even a possibility.

I don't think the anti's have been that successful on all fronts. the AWB sunsetted, the Brady bill isn't exactly a catastrophe, no gun show loophole closing law has been passed, and more states than ever issue CCW permits - and Heller is the cherry on top. We're doing pretty well.Very well put, some people just can't seem to grasp the situations that come up now and in the past. If the Heller case would have lost and with the Supreme Court these days you just don't know what is going to happen.

[GermanSynergy]

As bad as Reid is, he's better than the guy next in line, Schumer.

[rubberneck]

Very well put, some people just can't seem to grasp the situations that come up now and in the past. If the Heller case would have lost and with the Supreme Court these days you just don't know what is going to happen.

It must be great to be as smart as you. You've apparently got it all figured out while us stupid people can't grasp the complexities of the issue.:rolleyes:

[BrianS]

It must be great to be as smart as you. You've apparently got it all figured out while us stupid people can't grasp the complexities of the issue.:rolleyes:

Come out of NJ and take a look around. You think gun control groups are attacking on all fronts? They are retreating on all fronts dude! More states than ever before have shall issue ccw. More people than ever before own so called assault weapons. A Democrat douchebag in Washington tried to introduce a AWB bill in our state legislature after the tragic murders of some cops and about a thousand people showed up to protest him at the Capitol. It was defeated in committee, PARTLY BY DEMOCRATS. Washington Ceasefire and the Brady Campaign are reduced to trying to protest Starbucks for letting people carry openly in liberal Meccas like Bellevue and Seattle!

Far from "playing chess, contemplating their next non-move" the NRA has been fighting - and winning if you ask me- the battle for our RKBA. People point to setbacks suffered nearly 20 years ago or more as evidence of a losing battle and ignore the last 20 years of victories on all fronts.

[John_Wayne777]

Losing in court is always a possibility but that has never stopped anti gun groups from bringing lawsuits or passing bs gun laws.


...because, as I've stated, they have the overall tenor of government and the courts on their side. They can have as many bites at the apple as they want. We don't have the same advantage.

As I said, this is chess...not checkers.

The NRA's reticence was warranted...and we came down to 1 swing vote and a decision that still leaves lots of room for stupid gun laws.

[rubberneck]

Come out of NJ and take a look around. You think gun control groups are attacking on all fronts? They are retreating on all fronts dude!

So these micro stamping, 50 cal bans, one gun a month restrictions, smart guns, ammo surcharge, reloading component surcharge, H.R. 45, H.R. 257, and literally dozens of other anti gun measures introduced or considered at both the state and federal level over the past five years amounts to a retreat? You really need to pull your head out of the sand if you really think the anti gun groups are running scared. They have changed tactics and they still attack on all fronts. Either through the passage of law or through litigation they are as active now as they have ever been.

[Artos]

So these micro stamping, 50 cal bans, one gun a month restrictions, smart guns, ammo surcharge, reloading component surcharge, H.R. 45, H.R. 257, and literally dozens of other anti gun measures introduced or considered at both the state and federal level over the past five years amounts to a retreat? You really need to pull your head out of the sand if you really think the anti gun groups are running scared. They have changed tactics and they still attack on all fronts. Either through the passage of law or through litigation they are as active now as they have ever been.

I didn't get a memo on my desk of any of these becoming law in my state...i did however get a bazillion emails warning me about them being on the radar. Not sure how the NRA is supposed to keep from getting anti gun bills into consideration. Most of this crap doesn't make it out of comittee.

I think what he meant to say is that it is finally starting to swing our direction with heller and a probable a 5-4 victory with Mcdonald on the way. I also heard a certain state is going to be able get suppressors & conceal carry is starting to expand, etc.

Gun control is certainly a topic most anti-gun elected official do not want to talk about if they are in fear of losing power...thank you nra members

[Dragon Slayer]

There are two groups that attack the NRA and they are Do nothing GOA members (if you know anything useful that GOA has done please put it up), the Brady bunch or Liberal anti gun infiltrators that in other forums we used to call Trolls.

Somebody should have lost his mind to attack anybody on our side specially the NRA that in a very calculating method has done huge improvements to our right to keep and bear arms, the other organization that does a lot and is very effective is CCRKBA and the 2nd Amendment foundation.

I find it also very interesting that the same people that attack the NRA have done absolutely nothing that they can show that has benefited our rights and these are the same people in many instances that attack Hannity, Beck, Palin and many other conservatives on our side.

Even assuming that they do not get the immensity of the problem we are facing, the changing times, the amount of work and money it takes to fight the anti gunners, the number of members that are needed (There is strength in numbers that is why the constant recruiting), why we need to be inclusive of hunters, target shooters and trap and skeet shooters (there are many more hunters then combat handgun shooters and the fact that divided we fall) I find it very short sighted and simplistic to attack each other when the enemy is out there unless the enemy is Us.

I am a Life member of the NRA and a member of the CCRKBA/and 2nd amendment foundation and proud to be one, I will also join GOA if you can show me one good thing that GOA has accomplished during the last ten years except shooting their mouth and labeling our supporters as F's.:rolleyes:

[MassMark]

There are two groups that attack the NRA and they are Do nothing GOA members (if you know anything useful that GOA has done please put it up), the Brady bunch or Liberal anti gun infiltrators that in other forums we used to call Trolls.

Somebody should have lost his mind to attack anybody on our side specially the NRA that in a very calculating method has done huge improvements to our right to keep and bear arms, the other organization that does a lot and is very effective is CCRKBA and the 2nd Amendment foundation.

I find it also very interesting that the same people that attack the NRA have done absolutely nothing that they can show that has benefited our rights and these are the same people in many instances that attack Hannity, Beck, Palin and many other conservatives on our side.

Even assuming that they do not get the immensity of the problem we are facing, the changing times, the amount of work and money it takes to fight the anti gunners, the number of members that are needed (There is strength in numbers that is why the constant recruiting), why we need to be inclusive of hunters, target shooters and trap and skeet shooters (there are many more hunters then combat handgun shooters and the fact that divided we fall) I find it very short sighted and simplistic to attack each other when the enemy is out there unless the enemy is Us.

I am a Life member of the NRA and a member of the CCRKBA/and 2nd amendment foundation and proud to be one, I will also join GOA if you can show me one good thing that GOA has accomplished during the last ten years except shooting their mouth and labeling our supporters as F's.:rolleyes:

This thinking is precisely why the National Rifle Association membership will never likely fully realize the potential of the NRA, or the Second Amendment....When one holds an organization in omnipotence - beyond criticism - beyond reproach, then all is lost. Look at the multi-million dollar office complexes, look at salaries, look at advertising revenue, look at the relationship with China, subsequent merchandising and please highlight how effectively the National Rifle Association is using it's money - OUR money to fight anti-gunners...Then please go back and read my post highlighting major NRA failures and state how those points have advanced our cause...

Not everyone who "attacks" the National Rifle Association are "do nothings"...I'd bet I could challenge you with exactly how much I do individually to stand up for the 2nd Amendment. I'd be willing to wager, that my postage stamp count, E-mail count, phone call count and boots on the ground count, would be hard to match...There is a third group of people who challenge the NRA: People who actually choose not to guzzle the fruity punch and dare to question....

[thopkins22]

...I will also join GOA if you can show me one good thing that GOA has accomplished during the last ten years except shooting their mouth and labeling our supporters as F's.:rolleyes:

I think the F's the GOA gives out are far more honest than the NRA ratings. However if you want to go down the "chess not checkers" line of thinking then perhaps giving people who are in favor of AW gun bans something other than the F they actually deserve makes sense. If by placating Nevada voters that Harry Reid isn't all that anti-gun, he doesn't lose as many voters to that issue and promises(or hints at) to not push for, allow out of committee, or talk about another AWB or something along those lines. If that's the reasoning the NRA has for not giving people like him an F then that makes slightly more sense. However, I think it's still nice to know who is legitimately on my side...so I give everybody money.

[Dragon Slayer]

This thinking is precisely why the National Rifle Association membership will never likely fully realize the potential of the NRA, or the Second Amendment....When one holds an organization in omnipotence - beyond criticism - beyond reproach, then all is lost. Look at the multi-million dollar office complexes, look at salaries, look at advertising revenue, look at the relationship with China, subsequent merchandising and please highlight how effectively the National Rifle Association is using it's money - OUR money to fight anti-gunners...Then please go back and read my post highlighting major NRA failures and state how those points have advanced our cause...

Not everyone who "attacks" the National Rifle Association are "do nothings"...I'd bet I could challenge you with exactly how much I do individually to stand up for the 2nd Amendment. I'd be willing to wager, that my postage stamp count, E-mail count, phone call count and boots on the ground count, would be hard to match...There is a third group of people who challenge the NRA: People who actually choose not to guzzle the fruity punch and dare to question....

No body is holding the NRA beyond reproach, but to expect the NRA to create miracles in certain political climates when the country is in the wrong mood or the liberal anti gunners are in a huge majority or the SCOTUS is full of liberals is a completely unreasonable demand. But if the eighty million gun owners would join the NRA and take an active role including voting for pro gun candidates instead of the likes of Obama we would be a force to be reckoned with.

You working individually for our rights is commendable but it is like a fart in the wind on top a mountain, no body cares but a group fart in the middle of Congress is something that gets things done that is why the old saying divided we fall united we win.

So you want people that are working for your rights to get paid very little and to maybe work out of a mobile home? man you are ignorant of how this world works if that is what you want to spend for people working full time for you then the quality of the people you get will be worth what you pay for this is not a communist country.

If you don't like the people at the top of the NRA then join, run and vote to replace them.:rolleyes:

[Dragon Slayer]

I think the F's the GOA gives out are far more honest than the NRA ratings. However if you want to go down the "chess not checkers" line of thinking then perhaps giving people who are in favor of AW gun bans something other than the F they actually deserve makes sense. If by placating Nevada voters that Harry Reid isn't all that anti-gun, he doesn't lose as many voters to that issue and promises(or hints at) to not push for, allow out of committee, or talk about another AWB or something along those lines. If that's the reasoning the NRA has for not giving people like him an F then that makes slightly more sense. However, I think it's still nice to know who is legitimately on my side...so I give everybody money.

I despise Harry Reid more then most in Congress but by what I heard the only thing he has been doing right is his stance on the gun issue, if you ask me I still would vote him out.

[Dragon Slayer]

I remember in another forum debating the same issue with another "all or nothing now, do nothing self righteous person" that was saying he will join the NRA when the NRA repeals the 1968 GCA.

My question to him was that he wanted to do absolutely nothing and reap the benefits of all the time, work and money that us NRA members, CCRKBA members would invest to solve the problem and then he would come to the table and reap the benefits.

The hell with him as I told him there also, what a selfish, self righteous prick that wants to do nothing, contribute nothing, just sit on his ass and wait for everybody else to do everything for him and when its done he will contribute his 25 dollars a year for a membership fee, screw him (and believe me but the rest of the 76 million gun owners fall into this category also).

But who are the worst ones the ones that are so self righteous that not only they do not do anything but keep vociferating against the ones that are doing their best.:rolleyes:

[rubberneck]

I remember in another forum debating the same issue with another "all or nothing now, do nothing self righteous person" that was saying he will join the NRA when the NRA repeals the 1968 GCA.

Hey asshole since 2001 I have donated a just a little less than $10,000 of my hard earned money to pro second amendment candidates and groups including the NRA. I don't blow my own horn on internet message boards because it seems vainglorious, but I am sure as hell not going to sit around and let some loud mouthed douchebag on the internet tell me that I an a do nothing self righteous person. So pat yourself on the back over your $45 annual membership to the NRA. Far better people than you have given far more to our cause without being an insufferable prick about it.

[Dragon Slayer]

Hey asshole since 2001 I have donated a just a little less than $10,000 of my hard earned money to pro second amendment candidates and groups including the NRA. I don't blow my own horn on internet message boards because it seems vainglorious, but I am sure as hell not going to sit around and let some loud mouthed douche bag on the internet tell me that I an a do nothing self righteous person. So pat yourself on the back over your $45 annual membership to the NRA. Far better people than you have given far more to our cause without being an insufferable prick about it.

Now to respond to you in kind will lower me to your level, the level where the sewers flow where you came from. I did not include you in the response in particular, if you took it personally then the shoe must fit.

I really feel sorry for you because it seems like you grew up without proper education and parental guidance, and the only internet commando (douche bag) is you, because only people like you use foul language when they are hiding under the bed and think they can not be found.

By the way did you get the title rubberneck deep throating people?

[lethal dose]

KNOCK IT OFF OR I'M REPORTING MY OWN THREAD. ridiculous.

[Cagemonkey]

WOW, WTF Over

[SHIVAN]

KNOCK IT OFF OR I'M REPORTING MY OWN THREAD. ridiculous.



Ok, one 15pt infraction and one temp ban. Anyone else feeling like they need a vacation? Stay on topic, keep to discussing the issues, and leave the name calling for the bar.

Thanks.

[Don Robison]

Some things don't change...


On Harry Reid; hopefully he'll get canned like many others need to be.

[SHIVAN]

Some things don't change...

It's probably not the best idea to instigate more in a thread with two people already being given infractions for derogatory comments/instigating. ;)

[rubberneck]

I'd like to apologize to the board for losing my cool. I'd blame it on a really bad day but in reality there isn't excuse for using the language that I did.

[Cagemonkey]

I'd like to apologize to the board for losing my cool. I'd blame it on a really bad day but in reality there isn't excuse for using the language that I did.Accepted. Thanks for having the humility. It takes balls. I hope that your day gets better. We've all been there.

[Don Robison]

It's probably not the best idea to instigate more in a thread with two people already being given infractions for derogatory comments/instigating. ;)

Good call, sorry about that. I didn't intend to instigate anything, but I can see how it could be taken that way.

[beckman]

Harry Reid is a dirtbag. Watch the movie "Casino," a reasonably true-life crime drama about the mafia in LV. The movie shows the corruption in Nevada gaming, and how almost every gov't offical was on the take.

Who was the head of Nevada's Gaming Control Commission during that time?

That's okay, it doesn't matter because Reid is soooo pro-gun. Who says? Oh, that's right, Harry says. But why take his word, just look at the Nevada Outdoor DEMOCRATIC Caucus:

http://www.nodc.us/REID01.htm

But in 1993 when an amendment to the Crime Bill was offered and cosponsored by leading Senate Democrats, Harry Reid voted NO.

Gee, that's confusing. I thought that the '94 AWB passed in 1994 (after all, it wasn't the '93 AWB). So why is Reid talking about his 1993 vote?

As can be seen below, there were quite a few votes on the Crime Bill (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994), from 1993 to 1994. We know that the '94 AWB passed in 1994, so why does Reid bullhorn so much about his '93 vote?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h103-3355&tab=votes

Reid talks about his '93 vote because he doesn't want to talk about his '94 vote, which was FOR the Crime Bill.

Here's the Senate vote from Aug 25, 1994, when the Crime Bill finally passed and Reid voted "yea":
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1994-295
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=2&vote=00295

Which Harry Reid do you trust?

[dennisuello]

I'm voting for Sharron Angle in the primary tomorrow, and will vote against Reid, no matter who his Republican opponent will end up being. And if NRA officially endorses Reid over anyone else, I will cancel my NRA membership and all that money will go to GOA and other.

[Heartland Hawk]

I don't live in NV, but I'd sure like to see Reid get the boot. I hope Angle wins.