Red State is getting their panties in a bunch again because the “R” in NRA doesn’t stand for “Republican.” It’s no secret that NRA is endorsing many pro-gun Democrats. NRA seems to have gone out of their way this year, on the PVF web site, to explain their endorsements, especially for Democratic candidates. Obviously Red State is pushing GOA as an alternative, because GOA has never met a Democrat who is pro-gun enough for them. Does GOA want to explain why a solid pro-gun guy like Dan Boren (Democrat) has an A- while the rest of the (Republican) Oklahoma delegation gets solid As? Where did Dan go wrong? Do they want to explain why Markey, despite a solid voting record on our issue this Congress, is getting a D?  How do they justify a low grade of C for solidly pro-gun Jason Altmire? Or the same grade for Chet Edwards in Texas.
I maintain that GOA’s grades are a shameful scam on the American gun owner, as is their entire organization. NRA is coming around to being more transparent about their grading system. To the extent that NRAÂ can be transparent (and they are limited with how much they can be because of political considerations), that’s a good thing. Where is GOA’s transparency? Why is it, seemingly, that Democrats can’t be pro-gun enough for them?
The ideology will be enforced!! Is it really about guns with them? Or is it, “no guns for Democrats”?
It would be interesting to see where exactly GOA gets their money from. I don’t mean their PVF or foundation, GOA itself.
When I suggested that Democrats should get an automatic handicap on gun rights for their grades, Bitter beat that idea to death with the Blunt Club of Reality. Politically, some Democrats will win seats, and, unfortunately, there are those who will vote Democrat (almost) no matter what; if such people are pro-gun, they should be given the information they need in order to make their decisions.
As Bitter said, though, if the NRA put a handicap on Democrats, that would alienate a LOT of PA voters!
Having said that, I still think that, as a whole, we should consider the Republican Party to have a “B” grade, and the Democrat Party to have a “D” grade–and that individual candidates should be “automatically” (in our minds, at least) assigned these grades until evidence is given to the contrary. And, no, the NRA should not come out and announce such a default grading scheme! (After all, that would hurt them politically, and one of the purposes of the NRA grading system is to increase political influence.)
But Sebastian is right: as much as I don’t like Democrats, if I’m going to grade them on issues I like, I need to be completely honest about it. I don’t think the GOA is being honest. No, “honest” probably isn’t the right word. The right word isn’t coming to me, but they need to focus on the topic, and don’t let other issues (even other issues of civil rights, such as speech or searches) blind them on this particular grade.
Indeed, if there are other important issues that they feel should be addressed, they should either announce what they are, or they should give individual grades on those issues!
Bitter beat that idea to death with the Blunt Club of Reality
Oh my goodness, now I know what I want for Christmas. I want a real-life Blunt Club of Reality. :)
I don’t actually mean to come off as a club-wielding witch, but having lived in Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Virginia, and now Pennsylvania. I’ve lived in rural and urban areas. I’ve lived in overwhelmingly Republican and Democratic areas. I just tried to figure out what works in all of those places. And, I will concede, of all of the areas that are the hardest to figure out, it’s suburban Philadelphia. After a while experiencing political life around the country, you just come to realize that the ideal situation never really presents itself, and you need to do what works.
There are a couple of reasons why I will not join the GOA, and this is one of them.
The R may not stand for Republican, true… We are reminded by the NRA’s endorsements that the A does not stand for America, either. That’s why I rarely send the NRA any of my political money.
That’s all right, Steve in TN. I have my wife and 4 sons memberships to carry your load! Your answer just forced me to send another 100 dollars from my family! Feel free to jump in anytime or sit on the sidelines and mope.
I will never get people like you. I am happy to be in an “A”ssociation that looks after the 2nd “A”mendment in “A”merica.
I’m divided. On the one hand, I’m one of the first people who will tell you that the R does not mean “Republican”, and shouldn’t.
The other side of that record, though, plays this song. If the first thing they do in the next session of Congress is vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker, and vote to put Waxman, Conyers, (and so on, ad nauseum) in charge of the various Committees, aren’t they actually aiding and abetting the Anti’s, regardless of how they vote on the final bill that those dorks produce?
It’s a fair concern, but votes directly on the issue should matter more than votes for leadership, largely because of goes into selecting leadership (much of which is based on seniority, rather than vote).
Even remarkably bad leadership can’t pass a bill without the necessary votes, and it’s still possible to work around bad leadership with a solid majority of pro-gun votes. That’s been demonstrated by the fact that we’ve managed to get things done in this Congress.
So it might be that GOA is counting leadership votes heavily, but that’s bad politics if they are.
I don’t actually mean to come off as a club-wielding witch
Why not? You might have a future Senate run ahead of you.
I’ll be honest, I do have problems with the NRA’s endorsements but I do understand them — for the most part.
What I don’t get is why they won’t make an endorsement in a race where the challenger is rated AQ and the incumbent Democrat is rated D or even F. In North Carolina, they have done this in five Congressional districts – 1st, 2nd, 4th, 12th, and 13th. Of those, the 1st, 4th, and 12th will go Democrat no matter what. However, Renee Ellmers in the 2nd has made it a very competitive race against Democrat Bob Etheridge.
Why should they care about pissing off incumbents that don’t like us anyway? I mean, for God’s sake, they *did* endorse Christine O’Donnell.
Generally speaking, when it comes to non-incumbents, they won’t endorse a lost cause, for the reason that it kills your win percentage and weakens the perceived value of your endorsement. They will only, generally, endorse in races where they can plausibly influence the outcome.
Now for incumbents, they will stick by you through thick and thin if you maintain a pro-gun voting record, but it’s unusual for incumbents to lose.
They don’t always get it right every time, and I’d wager much of the time they just don’t know how competitive certain races may be. Pennsylvania has hundreds and hundreds of races this year, and even devoting full time to studying them, I can’t believe you can know how every politician is doing. So you go on what you know about the district, which may or may not reflect current reality.
I would also say if you think they are getting something wrong, tell them. You may actually have information about a race that they don’t know about.
Supporting a Democrat because of his belief in the Second Amendment is pretty much like the Frog ferrying the Scorpion across the River.
“Why did you sting me? Now we’re both going to die.”
“I’m a Democrat. It’s my Nature.”
YMMV, and I am represented by one of the best 2nd Amendment Democrats going (Mike Ross, AR-4). But even so, I’m doing everything I can to get him replaced. He’s still a Scorpion, and his nature will be to kill me, eventually.
Not-supporting a Democrat because they believe in the 2nd Amendment – or supporting a Republican like Meg Whitman who hates it??
Jerry Brown, for all his other weirdness, is much better on guns than Ruling Class Princess Meg who thinks all the serfs should be disarmed.
The thing we found out in CA about Democrats is they may want to sting, but when they try to write it into law they suck and they’re stupid and they can’t form complete grammatical sentences, like they went to their own schools or something – and it’s such a confusing mess we get to have it frozen by the Courts and sealed and set aside. That’s what happened to the Roberti-Roos list of banned weapons. It got set aside, and we can WIN in that environment – but Whitman is no friend of gun owners or even civil rights, and could sting us worse.
Throwing around misogynist terms like “panties in a wad” and anti-gay slurs like “butt hurt” are taking the low road, and aren’t helpful for persuading the un-informed voters trying to educate themselves prior to an election.
The vast majority of current conservatives were leftists when they were young. Somebody showed them the way, taught them to think. Waving the ‘we’re hateful losers, ignore us’ flag doesn’t help the cause.
Can somebody please explain this?
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/does-dan-lungren-really-deserve-a-b-from-nra
Dan Lungren got an endorsement from the NRA.
That’s Dan “SKS Sporter Confiscations” Lungren from California.
An actual, real-life gun confiscator, with an NRA endorsement.
I’m not sure he deserves an endorsement but he seems to be trying to make up for being a jackass. This is right off NRA-PVF’s website. His Dem opponent has a ? which means he’s probably bad.
* Voted for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that prevents attempts to bankrupt the American gun industry through bogus lawsuits
* Cosponsored and voted for the Second Amendment Enforcement Act and District of Columbia Personal Protection Act that would repeal the D.C. gun ban/registration statute and restore the right of self-defense to law-abiding residents of our nation’s capital
* Signed the pro-gun congressional “friend of the court” brief in the 2008 Heller case supporting the Second Amendment as an individual right and striking down the gun ban in our nation’s capital
* Signed the pro-gun congressional “friend of the court” brief in the McDonald case supporting the position that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right that protects all Americans
* Cosponsored and voted for legislation to force much-needed reform of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
* Voted for the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act that prohibits gun confiscation during states of emergency as happened after Hurricane Katrina
* Voted for the Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act, which would ensure that a person who filed for bankruptcy would not lose their firearms, thereby maintaining the fundamental right to self-defense
* Cosponsored the Veterans’ Heritage Firearms Act that would provide an amnesty period during which veterans and their family members could register firearms acquired overseas between 1934 and 1968, without fear of prosecution
* Voted last year for allowing carry license or permit holders to carry and transport firearms for self-defense in national parks and wildlife refuges
* Voted to protect hunting, fishing, trapping and recreational shooting on public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management
Thanks mike, for the actual response.
Yes, he’s got a good recent voting record.
But I still wouldn’t trust him at all.
His name ain’t Paul, and I don’t think he’s been walking any roads to Damascus lately.