NRA WTF?
I love the NRA. I am a Life Member and supporter. I am an NRA Certified Firearms Instructor. I donate extra money to the NRA political fund when I can. I believe they are the premier force protecting the 2nd Amendment from those that view These United States and our beloved Constitution as barriers to world socialism. Hell, I am the NRA. Though I support the NRA there are times when I see it as too compromising and sometimes a little slow to support some 2nd Amendment issues or oppose some measures. I still feel that they are a rock that we can all cling too even when I do disagree.
However, yesterday's announcement, while not exactly Earth-shattering as far as the membership at large is concerned, is somewhat discouraging.
NRA Endorses McCain.
We all know that Barack Hussein Obama is bad news to not only the 2nd Amendment, but also to our constitution and the idea of true democracy. The NRA has been making news for running ads negative to Obama though they are indeed factual in spite of what the Obamaites tell you. I'd say that this is money well spent. Further, we have all seen the NRA endorse presidential candidates in the past that have had a, let's just say, less than stellar track record on 2nd Amendment issues. Usually in these instances, they are endorsing a candidate that is maybe a "C" rated candidate against a "D" or an "F". The endorsed candidate maybe has not been fully supportive but not outright hostile to our freedoms.
However, this is different. This is John McCain.
Wayne LaPierre had these fine things to say about McCain at the Annual NRA meeting and convention:
"John McCain is one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment and is the poster boy for Americans For Gun Safety."
"John McCain is becoming a point man for both an anti-First and Second amendment effort."
Oh wait. Sorry, My Bad. Those were comments that were made at the 2001 Meeting. Here is something more current that Wayne had to say:
"John McCain has more than two decades of pro-gun and pro-hunting votes in Congress. He has stood time and again to preserve our Second Amendment freedom and our rich hunting heritage,"
Which is it Wayne? Is he an enemy of the 2nd Amendment or is he a stalwart champion of our cause? Are you really John Kerry or Mitt Romney? You flip-flop like they do.
Now, I understand the argument of the lessor or two evils and all that nonsense and I'll ignore the obvious answer that the lessor of two evils is still evil. But the NRA was not forced to endorse a candidate. They could continue attacking the commie without embracing the other one. Then there is a matter of the third choice. If they felt they had to make an endorsement, what is wrong with Bob Barr? (Obviously he is not perfect either with his Lautenberg support) but still, he is a candidate that is on the ballot in most states, while having an A+ rating from the NRA for his work in Congress. And most of all, Bob Barr is an NRA board member! So, in this case, the NRA not only endorsed a "enemy of the 2nd" they also slapped down one of our own to do so.
I have had arguments in the past that say the NRA is just a tool for the Republican Party. I have had to argue several times that that is not true, just more often than not Republicans happen to be aligned our way and that the NRA would be quick to support a democrat or a third party in an election if they were the better choice. Well, now I can no longer make that argument. With the endorsement of McCain over an obviously better suited Libertarian, it will appear as they are just a tool for the Republicans regardless of their 2nd Amendment commitment.
I am not saying we should not vote for John McCain. We really are not left with much choice and I will be pinching my nose and voting for him as well. While I have always been a proponent of third parties and have voted for them in the past, I, like the NRA leadership, realize that we must not let Hussein in the Whitehouse. It will open the door for a wave of socialism. However, I feel in this case that the NRA should have just been content with pouring on the facts about Obama and not taken up an endorsement this time around. The NRA's biggest political capital is the ability to throw our collective weight for or against a candidate or an issue. The message sent this time is that it is OK to oppose us this year because we will make up with you a few years later. In a sense, we have weakened our own political "dollar".
However, yesterday's announcement, while not exactly Earth-shattering as far as the membership at large is concerned, is somewhat discouraging.
NRA Endorses McCain.
We all know that Barack Hussein Obama is bad news to not only the 2nd Amendment, but also to our constitution and the idea of true democracy. The NRA has been making news for running ads negative to Obama though they are indeed factual in spite of what the Obamaites tell you. I'd say that this is money well spent. Further, we have all seen the NRA endorse presidential candidates in the past that have had a, let's just say, less than stellar track record on 2nd Amendment issues. Usually in these instances, they are endorsing a candidate that is maybe a "C" rated candidate against a "D" or an "F". The endorsed candidate maybe has not been fully supportive but not outright hostile to our freedoms.
However, this is different. This is John McCain.
Wayne LaPierre had these fine things to say about McCain at the Annual NRA meeting and convention:
"John McCain is one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment and is the poster boy for Americans For Gun Safety."
"John McCain is becoming a point man for both an anti-First and Second amendment effort."
Oh wait. Sorry, My Bad. Those were comments that were made at the 2001 Meeting. Here is something more current that Wayne had to say:
"John McCain has more than two decades of pro-gun and pro-hunting votes in Congress. He has stood time and again to preserve our Second Amendment freedom and our rich hunting heritage,"
Which is it Wayne? Is he an enemy of the 2nd Amendment or is he a stalwart champion of our cause? Are you really John Kerry or Mitt Romney? You flip-flop like they do.
Now, I understand the argument of the lessor or two evils and all that nonsense and I'll ignore the obvious answer that the lessor of two evils is still evil. But the NRA was not forced to endorse a candidate. They could continue attacking the commie without embracing the other one. Then there is a matter of the third choice. If they felt they had to make an endorsement, what is wrong with Bob Barr? (Obviously he is not perfect either with his Lautenberg support) but still, he is a candidate that is on the ballot in most states, while having an A+ rating from the NRA for his work in Congress. And most of all, Bob Barr is an NRA board member! So, in this case, the NRA not only endorsed a "enemy of the 2nd" they also slapped down one of our own to do so.
I have had arguments in the past that say the NRA is just a tool for the Republican Party. I have had to argue several times that that is not true, just more often than not Republicans happen to be aligned our way and that the NRA would be quick to support a democrat or a third party in an election if they were the better choice. Well, now I can no longer make that argument. With the endorsement of McCain over an obviously better suited Libertarian, it will appear as they are just a tool for the Republicans regardless of their 2nd Amendment commitment.
I am not saying we should not vote for John McCain. We really are not left with much choice and I will be pinching my nose and voting for him as well. While I have always been a proponent of third parties and have voted for them in the past, I, like the NRA leadership, realize that we must not let Hussein in the Whitehouse. It will open the door for a wave of socialism. However, I feel in this case that the NRA should have just been content with pouring on the facts about Obama and not taken up an endorsement this time around. The NRA's biggest political capital is the ability to throw our collective weight for or against a candidate or an issue. The message sent this time is that it is OK to oppose us this year because we will make up with you a few years later. In a sense, we have weakened our own political "dollar".
The only point that we disagree on is NRA throwing support behind a Libertarian. I would support a Libertarian candidate if there was a chance of a win against BOTH Reps and Dems. We don't have that luxury in this upcoming vote. Like you said, NRA looked at the candidates and chose the one that would do the least damage to us and the 2nd Amendment. We have a lot more dead wood to get rid of in Congress in the future before we can think about truly going Libertarian, which I lean to. I will contribute to any opposing candidate to Pelosi, Reed, and the rest of the anti US, anti Military and anti gun rights members.
PS,
I am also an NRA Life Member, and proud of it. I am also a Nam Vet and proud that I got to serve my country. If I wasn't so dam old I would have re-enlisted for Iraq.
You are on my RSS feed and I enjoy your Rants.
Reply to this
How much more of an impact would it have been if they had come out and simply said:
"There are no - we repeat, no - viable candidates in this election. Your second amendment rights are about to trampled on for the next 4 years, so get ready ready to either bury your guns or use them."
I mean, that would have been a better stance than simply supporting someone just to be supporting someone.
Stupid John McCain.
Reply to this
"There are no - we repeat, no - viable candidates in this election. Your second amendment rights are about to trampled on for the next 4 years, so get ready ready to either bury your guns or use them."
WOW. That would have been a ballzy statement. If the NRA said that, I bet the entire washington establishment woulda shit themselves. Too bad the NRA never calls for "real" action.
Reply to this