NRA donations to liberal politicians

[FREESPIRIT]

Nearing time for 2012 campaign funding smoozing. I am still irked about my NRA dues going to liberals like Harry Reid in the last election. Just because he built a gun range in his state - doesn't mean he is not part of the problem when it comes to government spending.
Because of Chris Cox - my NRA dues check is laying on the desk for the next election. What do you think?
 

[crusader rabbit]

Awhile back, Haz turned me on to the Second Ammendment Foundation (SAF) who, with their sister organization, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) are actually taking the fight to the courts.  And winning.

They seem to have a more sane appreciation for the conservative values I hold dear. 

I'm still a member of the NRA, but that's only until my membership expires in December of this year.  I will continue to renew my SAF membership as long as I have the financial ability to do so.  Or, (better) until they actually win the fight and the Consitution is reaffirmed as the law of the land.

[MikeBjerum]

FREESPIRIT - This is one of the things you get with a single issue organization, which is what most organizations are.  NRA looks at one thing and one thing only - Second Amendment.

The NRA uses a complex formula for their endorsements.  It is like a time weighted average.  Candidates move up the scale much slower based on changed views and votes than they move down - A strong pro-2nd can fall off the radar with one bad Bill, but it can take years for a former anti to move up.

We have a Rep. in D.C. Tim Walz (D).  He was endorsed by the NRA over the Republican.  I did not vote for him, because I do have other "hot button" issues as well, and in my numbers game he failed.  However, when it comes to the Second Amendment he has been a great friend both in D.C. and here in Minnesota.  I have no problem with NRA's endorsement for him.

As responsible citizens we have the responsibility of sorting out the issues and accept that each organization is going to endorse based on a very narrow focus.

[1Buckshot]

Vary well said M58. We might not agree with every thing a group dose but we need to look at the good of the hole of what they do.This from a life time member of the NRA and still sighing up new members.

[tombogan03884]

I keep trying to make people wake the f*ck up and realize that no matter what a particular Dem candidate says, he represents the PARTY platform. Give money to the gun owningest Bluest dog Dem and you are giving money to anti gun activists. The Dem party platform is dead set against the 2A and if people didn't learn anything else from the Health care bill they should have at least learned that candidates will say anything for your vote and then will follow the lead of their campaign money.

[Sponsor]

[Pathfinder]

FREESPIRIT - This is one of the things you get with a single issue organization, which is what most organizations are.  NRA looks at one thing and one thing only - Second Amendment.

The NRA uses a complex formula for their endorsements.  It is like a time weighted average.  Candidates move up the scale much slower based on changed views and votes than they move down - A strong pro-2nd can fall off the radar with one bad Bill, but it can take years for a former anti to move up.

We have a Rep. in D.C. Tim Walz (D).  He was endorsed by the NRA over the Republican.  I did not vote for him, because I do have other "hot button" issues as well, and in my numbers game he failed.  However, when it comes to the Second Amendment he has been a great friend both in D.C. and here in Minnesota.  I have no problem with NRA's endorsement for him.

As responsible citizens we have the responsibility of sorting out the issues and accept that each organization is going to endorse based on a very narrow focus.

I used to believe that, too, M58, but now I really wonder if the NRA isn't using that excuse as a smoke screen. They lose serious amounts of cash if and when the US Constitution is re-affirmed as the foundational law of this land. If the 2nd Amendment is no longer in play, people like Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre will have to actually, you know, find a real job!

I am an NRA life member, but it will stay at that, even with the juicy endowment offers I get from the NRA. I'm am leaning heavily to contributing to the 2AF, CRKBA, et al. that are actually accomplishing something.

[tombogan03884]

Path is right. The number one foe of gun rights in America is the NRA.  Overturn all gun control laws and the NRA is back to being another shooting club that sponsors museums and training. No more big pay checks for the likes of Cox and LaPierre.
If you could eliminate all guns over nite the brady bunch would try to have you killed, for the same reason, no more big bucks from Soros and the Joyce foundation.

[PegLeg45]

I used to believe that, too, M58, but now I really wonder if the NRA isn't using that excuse as a smoke screen. They lose serious amounts of cash if and when the US Constitution is re-affirmed as the foundational law of this land. If the 2nd Amendment is no longer in play, people like Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre will have to actually, you know, find a real job!

I am an NRA life member, but it will stay at that, even with the juicy endowment offers I get from the NRA. I'm am leaning heavily to contributing to the 2AF, CRKBA, et al. that are actually accomplishing something.

Same here.

The more I look at it, I think that the NRA means well, but it (as a whole entity) has evolved toward a different end. It looks like they are 'fighting' as much (and at times more) for their own preservation than for true 2nd Amendment advocacy.
I've said it before: I might not 'renounce' the NRA, but I don't have to throw any more money at them either. They have built a good foundation over a long period of time and, on the whole, done more good than many other organizations. I just can't get behind some of their actions here lately.

But, as to the original poll, I do think Cox is pretty good in the case argument area. If he would just stick to that.

[JC5123]

Admittedly I USED to be a member of the NRA. I did not renew after 2009. My reasoning was because it started to feel like being a member of one of those book clubs that sends you crap that you never asked for every month, along with a bill. It basically became more of a hassle sending everything back, and then arguing with them monthly to stop sending stuff. I support the cause of the NRA, however more and more I look at their actions, and who they support, and I can't help but shake my head and wonder WTF?

[Hazcat]

Here is why the answer is NO!

http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=16233.new#new