Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Trlsmn, Jul 18, 2010.
Is Harry Reid pro-gun or anti-gun? You be the judge.
Is Harry Reid pro-gun or anti-gun?
It makes me disgusted knowing the NRA plans to endorse him. The ONLY reason why I maintain membership with them at this point is, because my range requires NRA membership. If I could dump them I would.
I really love how Reid puts on a front like opening a public range in Nevada when in reality he is a wolf in sheep clothing.
He's a career politician just happens to have a D by his name. Doesn't really matter for most of them these days whether it is a D or R. He will eat out of any hand that will feed him. He will tow the party line in most cases but throw a bone to his other supporters now and then just to show he cares.
I began to wonder if the list was going to end. I guess the only way it will end is when he's out of office.
Then we need to call or write the NRA and pitch a fit.
I cannot find anything saying he is going to be endorsed by the NRA, however, if his opponent is even worse then what do you really do.
EDIT: I just found this. It looks to be a bit of the other side of the story.
Harry Reid is Pro-Harry Reid.... period.
Harry Reid might be the main reason there has been no push to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban, despite Democrat control of the Congress and White House.
If Harry Reid is defeated but the Democrats retain control of the Senate, say hello to the new Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Chuck Schumer of NY, NRA grade F.
Wow. I only had to read a few lines before I realized this was a GoA article.
I suggest that you do research for yourselves and DO NOT take this as fact. Every time I check their facts I get a different story.
The citizens of Nevada are tired if Reed's antics. He's done.
Do you realize you just negated your own point with that statement?
The American Spectator : America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution
America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution
By Angelo M. Codevilla from the July 2010 - August 2010 issue
As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors' "toxic assets" was the only alternative to the U.S. economy's "systemic collapse." In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets' nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.
If you go to the American Spectator and read the entire six pages you will get an understanding what we are up against. Our politicions think they are royalty.
The NRA makes an excellent point though.
Chuck Schumer, Harry's Democrat next-in-line, is one of the most out-of-touch, scary individuals in Congress where gun ownership is concerned, and NY's political machine isn't going to let him be defeated anytime soon. He and Kali's Babs Boxer, Dianne Fienswine, and MI's Carl Levin scare the crap out of me. Then there's tricky Dick Durbin of Illness-noise.
Senior Democrat leadership in Congress has always been scary, but the current crop is poised to screw us into the ground if they get their way.
Vote your gun rights, and encourage everyone you know to do the same!
The unfortunate reality is that the NRA has to view the election as a choice between Harry Reid vs. Charles Schumer as Senate Majority Leader.
I am by no means a Reid fan but if he gets replaced by Schumer we are in some deep feces.
There is a time to make a stand on principle, but there is also a time to be pragmatic and choose the lesser of two evils. Reid is clearly the lesser evil.
I do not believe it matters whether Harry or Chuck are calling the shots, there are some Democrats that realize that a serious anti-gun vote is career killer. Some may actually not buy into gun control. This next election will most likely hurt the anti-gun politicians numbers. But there is always the chance of a RINO or two selling out.
It wasn't a point it was a disclaimer.
If I cared enough I would go and examine line by line and find the facts on what they report.
But I don't get anything from working to expose a corrupt political group, because every body raises their glocks in the air, fires and shouts "LIBERAL YOU HATE GUNS!@!!!!!!!!!"
Then proceeds with a bunch of BS rhetoric to prove that their AR-15 can in fact replace their penis.
Which is why I put the disclaimer out there.
Listen to me or don't. But just realize that you are sharpening the sheers to trim your own wool if you just blindly trust the GoA at their word and face value.
Check the last few lines where they claim the health care bill is going to compile a gun owner database..
At that point I didn't have to fact check it because the bill they summarized (of course they never quoted directly when it was) had not even been written yet.
Apparently the GoA has been spending their money on time machines or has found some very good psychics.
And when the bill was released I never found evidence that it had any relation to fire arms.
Maybe you should quit while you're behind!
Ever hear the quote:
The enemy of my enemy is my friend?
A fine example of rhetoric, thanks. :huh:
Your disclaimer is hypocrisy, I'm just pointing out that you don't practice what you condemned the rest of us for.
Again you say that yet you yourself won't take the time to refute the post.
Take your own advice and dissect the information in the first post and prove it wrong!
I dare ya! I double dog dare ya!
I'll even make it easy for you, go to the link provided and look at the original article each point has a link to the actual vote and the link is to the U.S. Senate, you can't spin that as propaganda.
Here is an example:
1. June 28, 1991—Voted for a 5 day waiting period for handgun purchases (Vote No. 115).
Click the blue part where is says Vote No.115
So what's it going to be 56kninja?
:bluelaugh::bluelaugh: I know there are alot of liberals on this site just like you so if you would kindly prove GAO is wrong you would raise the standards a bit. However if you can't prove them wrong I don't think you help your cause by talking about a penis. While those liberals here may be interested in your shortcommings the rest of us wish you would stay on topic.
Reid is a progressive democrat and that should answer all questions.
:bluelaugh::bluelaugh::bluelaugh: Too much coffe this morning Trism???:bluelaugh::bluelaugh:
Separate names with a comma.