Skip to comments.Election 2010 Recap - Gun Owners' Rights To Be Strengthened In Next Congress!
Posted on 11/09/2010 12:32:44 PM PST by neverdem
|Election 2010 Recap|
|Friday, November 05, 2010|
Gun Owners' Rights To Be Strengthened In Next Congress!
Election Day 2010 was a great day for the Second Amendment and NRA members, and positions us well for our future defense, and advancement, of the Second Amendment! The most important fact about Tuesday's elections for gun owners is how many more pro-gun lawmakers we will have in the next legislative session and how many fewer anti-gun lawmakers there will be. Here are some highlights from Tuesday's contests:
Note: As of today, 9 races remain too close to call.
Gubernatorial & State Legislatures
We want to thank the tens of millions of gun owners who actively volunteered for pro-gun candidates and who Voted Freedom First on November 2nd!
Just because the NRA is saying they are pro-gun, doesn’t mean they are Republicans. The NRA was backing too many liberal Democrats just because they helped support a somewhat pro-gun bill or voted yes on a piece of legislation that the NRA supported. Some of these same people also voted yes on the healthcare crap and will vote yes on cap and trade. The NRA backed Chet Culver for IA Gov. Good thing Iowans didn’t listen to them and put Bransted in office instead .
“Just because the NRA is saying they are pro-gun, doesnt mean they are Republicans.”
Of course not. The R is for “Rifle”, not “Republican”.
I get that most of us expect conservatism to go hand in hand with gun rights, but to be fair they make their priorities pretty explicit.
BTW, just cuz someone is “Republican”, doesn’t make them “Conservative” either...
Conservatives should not care about the NRA. They are not a pro constitutional organization (except 2A) or a conservative organization.
On the other hand, true conservatives and true conservative organizations are pro 2A (and of course pro-Constitution). Conservatives understand that the 2A requires the whole Constitution, while the NRA does not.
BTW, how will the NRA endorsed Manchin vote on a zero SCOTUS nominee? Will Manchin choose party over the NRA, will Harry give him a permission slip to vote against the anti 2A nominee.
Wayne La Pierre is a pathetic socialist loving puke.
The NRA supported 85 rats. I don’t care if they are pro-gun. The rat platform is decidedly anti-gun and any vote for any rat is a vote to put the rats in leadership control which enables them to advance their platform.
After many years of membership, we left the NRA - or, rather, it left us. We have notified them not to contact us with anymore solicitastions or offers. When our current year of membership expires next Spring, we’re done with them.
oops....make that ‘solicitations.’
Do you have a reference?
P.S. - I belong to GOA too because I do think the NRA sometimes pussies out when it comes to supporting gun control legislation (trigger locks etc.) but overall, they're still a damned good organization that has an excellent record on the Second Amendment.
My reference is FR. There were several threads about it starting about 3-4 weeks before the election. Apparently you managed to miss all of them. Dick Morris also discussed it on Hannity or Greta. The NRA itself also confirmed it on the phone when I called them about getting our money back.
In what was supposed to be one of the closest elections in congress, the NRA endorsed the dem in MD’s 1st district even though the republican had an A rating from the NRA. I can understand if its a conservative dem against a rino who supports gun control..but there is no excuse for what happened in MD-1. I will never look at the NRA the same way again.
BTW-The conservative Republican (Harris) beat the NRA endorsed liberal!
FYI from National Gun Rights...
The hordes of newly-elected pro-gun Congressmen
and Senators won’t be sworn in until January 3rd.
Until then, President Obama is STILL armed with massive
majorities — and they are coming back to Washington next week to
pass as much Big Government legislation as they can.
Not only that, but there are still dozens of anti-gun Republicans
in both houses of Congress, as well.
With Election Day now behind them, they’re no longer even trying
to hide their DISGUST for the Second Amendment.
That’s why what happens in the “lame duck” session of Congress
over the next few weeks WILL be our toughest test yet.
As Harry Reid put it, the “Lame Duck” session is going to be a
“Goose on Steroids.”
Here we go again...call your Senator??
I agree with you whole heartedly.
However, your argument is lost among the posters here.
They are the same people who claim, on one hand, that the only thing that matters is who the candidate would support as Speaker/Majority Leader, and ignore the fact that the NRA is a single-issue organization.
On the other hand, they’ll say they are glad O’Donnell ran and lost, because it’s better to have taken Castle down (who would have voted for the aforementioned leadership) and take Coons, than to have run a RINO.
The logic makes my head spin.
Apparently, I did while posting other threads, but it's not that bad when you consider 64 rats in the House wrote a letter in 2008 or 2009 to Eric Holder, the Attorney General, to forget about any renewed so-called "assault weapons ban."
This campaign cycle, the NRA has endorsed 61 Democratic and 197 Republican House candidates, as well as 23 GOP and two Democratic Senate candidates.
I'm glad there we're friendly rats. So where did the other 22 come from?
If their ratings are equal, the NRA supports the incumbent.
Absolutely. The NRA has been burned too many times by opportunists who have no track record and will say anything to get elected. The NRA supports incumbents with proven track records.
For some odd reason, just claiming to be both Republican and "conservative" doesn't necessarily make one a Second Amendment advocate. Just as claiming to be "Christian" is not an automatic lock on being prolife, either.
If they have an excellent record, why are there major pieces of anti-gun federal legislation? 1934, 1968, 1986, 1994...
The 1994 ban hasn’t been renewed, despite Democrats having held huge majorities in both the Senate and the House since 2007 and Obama having been in the White House since 2009. That’s a testament to the NRA’s influence. If the NRA wasn’t around, I think we would have had a handgun ban by now.
The sad thing is, Americans would have bent over and taken it.
That’s why the NRA is so important. Not because they’re the best on the issues, but because they have significant amounts of money to spend on lobbying and ads against anti-gun congresscritters. Politicians in Washington know that the NRA has 4 million members and doesn’t mess around. I’ve never heard of a congresscritter losing a seat because voters thought he was too strong on gun rights, but plenty of people have lost seats either partially or entirely due to the fact that they were for gun control.
The NRA is a business that is about making money, much the way that Jesse Jackson makes money, not that the two have anything idealogically in common except making money. But stay on the single issue. The NRA is guns, not conservatism. Jesse is race, not justice. And they both make a lot of money.
BTW, the NRA is neither conservative or pro-constitutional (except for 2A).
However, all conservatives are pro-constitutional-including 2A. Conservatives know that you need the whole Constitution to protect all of our rights including 2A.
It’s not about the Republican party, rinos or the NRA, it’s about conservatism-something foreign to the NRA. And I support conservatives, not rinos, Dims, or the Dim loving NRA.
BTW, what is your guy Sen Manchin (D-WVA) going to do when zero sends a Lefty anti-gun SCOTUS nominee? Will he get a permission slip from uncle Harry? Do you think for a minute that he will buck the party?
Has that socialist loving Wayne LaPuke thought that one through, or is he to busy taking bribes from the Dims?