I understand where the NRA is coming from, but they frustrate me at times too.

[mav]

I know the NRA is a single issue advocacy group. I understand the arguments they make when endorsing a politician who is good on one issue (2nd ammendment). However, I think it sucks as well considering the politician they are endorsing may have sucked on every other issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIA5wEC-eu8&feature=player_embedded

[macville]

The questions need to be more about, will you lead on 2d amendment issues? Because it's great if every member of congress and the senate will vote for a pro 2d bill, but if no one will present the bill, then there IS NOTHING to vote on...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's the problem with a single issue lobby. Unfortunately most lobbies

are single issue. The 2nd Amendment is about as important an issue to

anyone that thinks, but the times the NRA backs democrats and then sees

them go against what they promise, it is the dirt in the barrel that hurts

the NRA. Not that it doesn't happen with RINO's, and it is a slap when either

side betrays it's core belief. Any politician is susceptible to corruption.

[Will Carry]

The NRA is not part of the Republican party. It is important that they make that clear. If the NRA became just another pawn of the Republican party or the Democratic party for that matter, it would loose it's status as a cival rights organization. It would be the end of the NRA. I don't support everything the NRA does but I am and will continue to support them as a whole.

[Guest HvyMtl]

The NRA is not a part of the Republican Party... Well, sometimes one has to wonder. They do seem to slant that way, at the very least in the public's perception...

I am not a supporter of the NRA. Why? Well. They have not been IMHO, focused on their one issue. Endorsing a known writer, sponsor, and position changer for political gain anti-2nd A Senator over a candidate who has not written, or sponsored any anti-2nd A legislation was fool hardy (The last Presidential Election - the best move would have been what they just did with TN Governors, no support for either.) This also points to their Pro-Republican over Democrat, even if it is anti-2nd A, perception.

Also, their actions with the disclosure act smacked of protecting themselves, and not protecting free speech or the 2nd A.

Edited October 11, 2010 by HvyMtl

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You can't de-link socialism from a huge portion of the Democrat Party, nowadays. I

have never assumed them to be a part of the Republican Party, either. I just assumed

common sense was telling them who to endorse. Single issue lobbies have a role to

protect their single interest, but when they don't realize a particular Democrat, when

after receiving said endorsement, does an about face when re-elected. Harry Reid

would have been a prime example, and they had to back down on that endorsement.

If they are endorsing any Democrat, this year, I won't have anything kind to say towards

them.

All the damage Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid did with their caucus this term told me all

I need to know about any Democrat endorsement, including those idiot "Blue Dog" fools.

I'd much rather spend my money and energy repairing or replacing the Republicans than

to allow a dime go to a Democrat. I don't see anyone trying to do anything constructive

with the Democrats. That's a very simple choice for me. They are not helping the 2nd

Amendment by compromising with the Devil.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Um. Wish there was an alternative to both parties. Looks like the Tea Party is just going to fall back into the umbrella of the Republicans.

But, again, the NRA seem pro-republican, to a fault. Lost a lot of face endorsing McCain. And should have.

Stay united with your goal, or lose it. Seems they have strayed a a bit.

Do like the no call on the TN governor's election though.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Your view about the Tea Party is from a third person omniscient phony one. Do you engage

or do you just go through life and observe everyone else's mistakes as if you had the right

answer all along?

One thing is for certain. The people in the Tea Party are actively engaged and you evidently

just observe to criticize. There may come a time when you wished you had become involved

in something, rather than sat on the sidelines and pontificated about everything and nothing.

[BigK]

I understand how the NRA might feel it owes these Democraps something for voting their way in the past. I even agree with the idea that failing to reward these guys for recently standing behind 2A rights might spoil future chances of getting any Democraps to support NRA-backed agendas. The NRA is always gonna do what's best for the NRA and this move gets the stigma as a Republican-only supporter off their back.

BUT, like some of you others are saying, in the long run this is not a smart move. These Democraps' opponents aren't anti-gun candidates? Most are Tea Party Republicans, who would be much better friends for the NRA to have in the long run. This is a very short sighted move for the NRA, IMO.

[leroy]

....The NRA is not part of the Republican party. It is important that they make that clear. If the NRA became just another pawn of the Republican party or the Democratic party for that matter, it would loose it's status as a cival rights organization. It would be the end of the NRA. I don't support everything the NRA does but I am and will continue to support them as a whole. ....

Amen brother!! You are exactly, 100% right. The NRA aint a political party; it is a pro-gun, second amendment advocacy group. That's exactly what it was formed to be.

Very insightful.

Keep up the good work.

Leroy

[Chucktshoes]

Amen brother!! You are exactly, 100% right. The NRA aint a political party; it is a pro-gun, second amendment advocacy group. That's exactly what it was formed to be.

I thought it was formed to promote rifle shooting and marksmanship amongst the general population?

[leroy]

...I thought it was formed to promote rifle shooting and marksmanship amongst the general population? ...

They did. They did this too (...lifted verbatim from the "About Us" Brief History tab...):

...Through the association's magazine, The American Rifleman, members were kept abreast of new firearms bills, although the lag time in publishing often prevented the necessary information from going out quickly. In response to repeated attacks on the Second Amendment rights, NRA formed the Legislative Affairs Division in 1934. While NRA did not lobby directly at this time, it did mail out legislative facts and analyses to members, whereby they could take action on their own. In 1975, recognizing the critical need for political defense of the Second Amendment, NRA formed the Institute for Legislative Action, or ILA. ...

Got it right here: NRA Click the "about us" tab.

leroy