NRA Presidential endorsement...

[stevie_d_64]

I would have posted this in the "Federal" folder, but thats gets about the attention of a gnat on a rhino...Sometimes...

So here goes...

Regardless of the tentative nature of the subject, and the way endorsements are levied mainly by a candidates voting record and activities that support the Right to Keep an Bear arms in general...I have always believed there may be a time when the NRA may very well need to stay out of an election and NOT endorse a candidate running for President of the United States...

I believe the time is now...

There have probably been discussions, meetings, etc etc on the subject with people who are in the know on the issue, but instead of yammering and hair pulling, trying to find some slim ounce of credibility of a candidate that is NOT all aboard with the idea that this organization and its members are in full support of obviously...

I believe the time is now...And to announce very publically, and on a national level, so there is no ambiguity from the leadership and membership of the NRA, that we are not going to endorse ANY candidate left standing in this race, I believe is proper, it is necessary, and it is totally on message with what it will mean to future candidates on the issue...

Sure, the down ballot races can certainly be reviewed and those endorsements should be made all the way down...Those that are proven via voting records, or activities and participation in events that support our cause should not have a problem getting an endorsement...

I believe its time to discuss this, whether you are for the idea, on the fence, or totally opposed to the idea...

The message we send to those watching this forum, and the timing might benefit us in the long run, and the NRA needs to hear from us on this issue...

I already feel very confident that not one candidate, either Republican or Democrat left in the race is a friend of our inalienable, individual right to keep and bear arms, that the jeopardy of the NRA endorsing any candidate in this cycle running for President would damage any future lobbying, political strength, and any desire for future candidates to seek this prestigeous organizations endorsement...

The next 4 years are going to be a real challenge for the cause, and the NRA needs to be strong and not loaded with a burden that this time could be passed upon and not levied on a (any) candidate that is NOT a friend to our cause...

I call for a public, national statement by the NRA to NOT endorse any candidate running for President this year...

[CompVest]

I hear what you are saying. However, the NRA not endorsing a candidate is akin to a voter not voting because there is no one he/she likes. It is better to put the best possible candidate in the office rather then abstain from voting and possibly get the worse. The NRA is not only a source of information about politicians but is a leader for many voters.

[stevie_d_64]

The NRA would show great leadership ability by not endorsing a candidate for this office, and strengthen its political position by sending the right message to the country and its membership, and future members by demonstrating this restraint...

Every single candidate left has demonstrated a serious lack of support for OUR right to keep and bear arms in the offices they have held previous to running for this position, every single one of them...And they WILL go out of their way to continue and further harm this right, regardles of whom it is that wins in November...

I am personally confident in this reality, therefore my position...

We do not deserve what is coming, and we need to be strong against the next 4 years, instead of supporting at the very least a pandering of our sensibilities on the issue...

The NRA leadership needs to know that we are behind them first and foremost, and all of us together, knowing why we are doing this is strength...

I am not at all fearful, or concerned about any perceived negativity from this possible action...It would be a principled stand, and that is what we need, principled representation...I believe it will grow our ranks and our voice to those that we elect to govern our affairs, and they will certainly listen, and give great thought over the next few years to the coming onslaught of attacks that WILL be a threat to you, me and everyone else who understands how important this issue is...

[Charles L. Cotton]

I do not yet know what we are going to do, but if we don't endorse a candidate, it won't be the first time. We didn't endorse daddy Bush for re-election; wow, that sure turned out well. We took the highroad and what was at the top? Eight years of Bill Clinton, the assault weapons ban, Clinton II running now, . . .

I can guarantee that, had Guiliani received the nomination, the NRA would not have endorsed him. Whether McCain or Romney would be perceived that badly by the experts who have been doing this for years, I do not know. Whatever the ultimate decision is, it will be based upon preserving the Second Amendment in the broadest terms.

Remember, that we need to have an impact on the U.S. House and Senate races and encouraging people to stay out of the Presidential race encourages them to stay home. This would be a disaster for House and Senate races. So as I said, if the best tactical decision is not to endorse anyone, then that will be the decision, but it's a very very difficult decision to make when the fate of the Second Amendment lies primarily in the NRA's hands.

Remember also that if NRA members and gun owners decide to stay out of the Presidential race, then get ready to be referring to Madam President. While it might be tempting to say that it would be worth having Clinton II for 4 years if we could see a resurgence of conservative control of the Republican party, we must remember that Bill Clinton won reelection in 1996, even after the passage of the Assault Rifle Ban in 1994 cost the Democrats the House in 1994.

Chas.

[flb_78]

1 candidate stands out among the rest on gun rights and that is Ron Paul, He has never voted for any kind of gun control and has offered up legislation to make concealed licenses recognized nationally much like marriage and driver's licenses.

I don't know why the NRA is ignoring Paul. He has a 20+ year track record of being a gun owner's best friend.

Even if you disagree with Paul on every other issue, his stance on gun rights is impeccable.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/second-amendment/

I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right.

I have always supported the Second Amendment and these are some of the bills I have introduced in the current Congress to help restore respect for it:

* H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993, two invasive and unconstitutional bills.
* H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans’ ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations.
* H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers, possibly preventing future 9/11-style attacks.
* H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely.

In the past, I introduced legislation to repeal the so-called “assault weapons� ban before its 2004 sunset, and I will oppose any attempts to reinstate it.

I also recently opposed H.R. 2640, which would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome from ever owning a gun.

You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, I will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I'm with Chas on this one.

[anygunanywhere]

Whether you vote Dem or GOP we will be calling each other "comrade" after four years.

Anygun

[stevie_d_64]

Well I cannot dissagree about Ron Pauls' stance on the Second Amendment...That is his best quality in my opinion...

No one else left after tonight, is worth a flip for our cause...

I do not see an upside to any of this other than I agree with Charles that the battle for the trenches in the Senate and House are where we need to gain some Veto-proof ground...Thats where I am going to go fight...

The political climate is going to be ripe for exploitation for the gun-control crowd...And there is not going to be much of a shield for us to hide behind for the next 4 years, anyway you look at it...

Not that I am trying to doom and gloom it, I think the battle will be where each of us draw that line in the sand, and how many times they try to step a tippy toe across it to challenge our sensibilities...

I may have a concern about the next 4 years, but now that we know what is obviously coming, I am not fearing that future...

I (we) are not here because of the path that lies behind us, we are here because of the path that lies before us...And the truth is that we are still here!!!

We are on that bridge at Lexington, we are in the trenches waiting for the next banzai charge...There is nowhere else I would rather be right now...

[yerasimos]

I want to better understand what is being proposed.

Is it a very public, explicit, immediate (within the next several weeks), pre-convention disavowal of all of the remaining Republicrat presidential candidates?

Is it waiting until after the conventions to publicly and explicitly disavow the Republicrat nominees?

Or is it a tacit omission of any presidential candidate endorsement, and skipping ahead to Congressional, state and local election endorsements?

I would suggest the tacit omission, a blackout of the presidential circus on NRANews and mailings, and an emphatic, strategic legislative focus.

Surely we agree that Obama and Hillary will not cooperate with the NRA. However, I believe McCain or Romney might under the right circumstances if they calculate that it is to their political advantage. By no means am I suggesting that they are pro-gun. They are not. I am simply recognizing that they are as opportunistic as 99% of the politicians out there, that the Republicans have been marginally friendlier to the Second Amendment, and that gun owners are perceived as "clients" of the Republican party.

As much as I dislike McCain and Romney (I refuse to vote for them at all, even if the NRA endorses them), I do not believe it would be wise to preemptively foreclose the possibility of strategic cooperation in the future. As far as the NRA is concerned, I believe they belong in a separate pigpen from Hillary and Obama.

In other words, if the current slate of presidential candidates are unacceptable, then just quietly focus upon maximizing gunowner turnout on election day, and emphasize the need to get pro-gun candidates (re)elected to state legislatures and Congress. That way, the NRA could be better positioned to monkeywrench with Obama or Hillary, or push some NRA-sponsored legislation in front of McCain or Romney, as well as preserve many of the state-level gains of the past several years.

[stevie_d_64]

Or is it a tacit omission of any presidential candidate endorsement, and skipping ahead to Congressional, state and local election endorsements?

I would suggest the tacit omission, a blackout of the presidential circus on NRANews and mailings, and an emphatic, strategic legislative focus.

Yep, thats about it...

I do not believe it would be wise to preemptively foreclose the possibility of strategic cooperation in the future. As far as the NRA is concerned, I believe they belong in a separate pigpen from Hillary and Obama.

I do not think it would damage it at all, the focus would re-align to the candidates and elected officials earning the endorsement, and not expecting it "just because"...

In other words, if the current slate of presidential candidates are unacceptable, then just quietly focus upon maximizing gunowner turnout on election day, and emphasize the need to get pro-gun candidates (re)elected to state legislatures and Congress.

Gunowner turnout is not a problem...Turning them out for "what", is what is important...You are right that we need to bring up in the talent pool, candidates that are well rounded in a lot of issues, Pro-Second Amendment candidates and elected officials should know that there RKBA's credentials should be a cornerstone that sets them above and apart from others because they believe and trust their constituency...

That may be to some a utopian look upon things but is it??? I believe its reality...

The NRA (like Charles stated) has done this in the past, and they need to do it again...That's all I am trying to say...

[yerasimos]

Gunowner turnout is not a problem...Turning them out for "what", is what is important...

Perhaps the coming elections will be an opportunity for the state affiliate organizations to really shine--and increase membership. As they may have a better feel on the pulse of state and congressional district politics, they can do more of the heavy lifting and help distill the "what", and the NRA can play a more strategic role. On the flip side, the state organizations sometimes do not have as much name recognition as the NRA; in those cases, perhaps the NRA can play a more prominent role.

I understand you (and others) are more experienced in this political stuff than I am. I am just brainstorming here.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Gunowner turnout is not a problem...Turning them out for "what", is what is important...

Right you are.

If they all turn out and vote for some "Slow Wheat" candidate they might as well just save some gasoline and flush their votes down the drain.

Along with any hope of retaining their gun rights.

[flb_78]

Gunowner turnout is not a problem...Turning them out for "what", is what is important...

Right you are.

If they all turn out and vote for some "Slow Wheat" candidate they might as well just save some gasoline and flush their votes down the drain.

Along with any hope of retaining their gun rights.

Man your attitude is annoying.

This is about how the NRA is saying that there are no candidates that support the 2nd amendment. The NRA is as bad as CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, or any other news outlet that refuses to report on Paul's progress.

There is only 1 candidate in either party that has a record of supporting gun rights and you say it is a wasted vote.

[nitrogen]

I have to agree, hoping that the NRA doesn't endorse anyone. I really don't think there's anyone TO endorse.
I absolutely hate my choices. It's either Shillery, Obratma, Mitt, or McTempertantrum.

As far as I know, each of these candidates stances on 2a rights is lame at best, and treasonous at worst.

I have huge problems with each candidate, so I'm personally in a bind. I'm considering voting 3rd party this time.

[cbr600]

deleted