NRA Presidential endorsement...

[frankie_the_yankee]

I think that's because Paul doesn't believe in "reasonable restrictions" on the right to keep and bear arms.

You mean like me and our entire federal judiciary?

Or maybe it's just because I'm watching primary election returns tonight and see Dr. Paul taking a pretty steady 5 or 6% of the vote.

Vote for Paul in the primary if you want. And if he gets the Republican nomination, stick with him all the way.

But if he doesn't, if you don't vote for the Republican in the general election, no matter who it is, you're flushing your vote down the drain.

The next president of the United States is going to be either the Republican nominee or the Democrat nominee.

Don't blame me. It's just a fact.

In a close election, too many people venting instead of voting will be a disaster for the 2A and for the country.

[flb_78]

I think that's because Paul doesn't believe in "reasonable restrictions" on the right to keep and bear arms.

You mean like me and our entire federal judiciary?

Or maybe it's just because I'm watching primary election returns tonight and see Dr. Paul taking a pretty steady 5 or 6% of the vote.

Vote for Paul in the primary if you want. And if he gets the Republican nomination, stick with him all the way.

But if he doesn't, if you don't vote for the Republican in the general election, no matter who it is, you're flushing your vote down the drain.

The next president of the United States is going to be either the Republican nominee or the Democrat nominee.

Don't blame me. It's just a fact.

In a close election, too many people venting instead of voting will be a disaster for the 2A and for the country.

And if I don't vote Republican, the terrorists win, right?

[KBCraig]

I think that's because Paul doesn't believe in "reasonable restrictions" on the right to keep and bear arms.

You mean like me and our entire federal judiciary?

No, like the CONSTITUTION, despite how you and our entire federal judiciary ignore what it plainly says.

[KBCraig]

I have long believed that the NRA (and every other advocacy group) should never endorse a candidate. They should rate candidates, and educate voters, but endorsements are a tricky business. Endorse too early, and you pick a loser (like Perry did); endorse too late, and you look like another "me too!" hopping on the likely winner's bandwagon, elbowing for space amongst the sycophants.

Issue advocacy groups should focus on the issue, not the candidates. In any race, there might be several candidates from which to chose, or there might be none who are acceptable. Advocates should rate them all, whether they range from B- to A+, or F- to D-. Weighing in to endorse only some candidates makes groups look fickle, and, well, capable of being bought.

[boomerang]

I think that's because Paul doesn't believe in "reasonable restrictions" on the right to keep and bear arms.

You mean like me

That's what I was saying. Ron Paul is too pro-gun for you.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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

Do you believe Ron Paul can win Republican nomination? Do you believe he could win the Presidential election?

Whether or not the NRA is ignoring Paul aside, the national media is not ignoring him and his numbers clearly show he is not a viable candidate.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Getting into heated discussions about Ron Paul, "reasonable restrictions," or what the founding fathers meant is a great intellectual and academic discussion. But that is a discussion for another time and another place. We are coming off eight years of peace in the gun control war and we need to do everything we can to make the coming battle winnable. The pendulum swung against us for a few years under Clinton I, then it started swinging in our favor beginning in 1994. It is now about to swing back and how far it swings will depend on who is in the White House and how well we do in the House and Senate races. (More Senate Republican seats are at risk than those held by the Democrats.) And after the Heller decision, we will face years of litigation to determine just what gun laws will pass constitutional muster. (This presumes we win and I believe we will. It also presumes the Court does not apply the "strict scrutiny" test and I am confident it will not.)

I suggest we consolidate our efforts on making the best out of a bad situation. Doing anything else aids our enemies and they are numerous.

Chas.

[gmckinl]

Getting into heated discussions about Ron Paul, "reasonable restrictions," or what the founding fathers meant is a great intellectual and academic discussion. But that is a discussion for another time and another place. We are coming off eight years of peace in the gun control war and we need to do everything we can to make the coming battle winnable. The pendulum swung against us for a few years under Clinton I, then it started swinging in our favor beginning in 1994. It is now about to swing back and how far it swings will depend on who is in the White House and how well we do in the House and Senate races. (More Senate Republican seats are at risk than those held by the Democrats.) And after the Heller{/i] decision, we will face years of litigation to determine just what gun laws will pass constitutional muster. (This presumes we win and I believe we will. It also presumes the Court does not apply the "strict scrutiny" test and I am confident it will not.)

I suggest we consolidate our efforts on making the best out of a bad situation. Doing anything else aids our enemies and they are numerous.

Chas.

[yerasimos]

In the spirit of Charles' and KBCraig's posts . . .

Hillary or Obama should get an F grade from the NRA. No big surprise there.

Assuming McCain or Romney is the RINO nominee, the NRA can give them a grade ranging from D to C-. If people insist upon choosing the lesser evil, then this gives them a rationalization to do so. Maybe this will leave the door ajar for future cooperation, as their grade was not as bad as their Democrat opponent.

If there is a continued strong aversion to third-party or independent presidential candidates, then omit their mention.

There should be a strong focus upon the endangered Senate Republican seats; conserving/improving position here could help block anti-gun judicial appointees. If this position falls, the anti-gunners could have free reign for both appointments and legislative activities.

How would the remaining resources be divvied up among House and state legislative contests?

[flb_78]

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

Do you believe Ron Paul can win Republican nomination? Do you believe he could win the Presidential election?

Whether or not the NRA is ignoring Paul aside, the national media is not ignoring him and his numbers clearly show he is not a viable candidate.

Chas.

I believe it was entirely feasible if the NRA had put up some support a couple of months ago instead of waiting until the primaries were half way over. It would seem that many on this board are more worried about giving Muslims rights then keeping our own.

[The Annoyed Man]

Getting into heated discussions about Ron Paul, "reasonable restrictions," or what the founding fathers meant is a great intellectual and academic discussion. But that is a discussion for another time and another place. We are coming off eight years of peace in the gun control war and we need to do everything we can to make the coming battle winnable. The pendulum swung against us for a few years under Clinton I, then it started swinging in our favor beginning in 1994. It is now about to swing back and how far it swings will depend on who is in the White House and how well we do in the House and Senate races. (More Senate Republican seats are at risk than those held by the Democrats.) And after the Heller decision, we will face years of litigation to determine just what gun laws will pass constitutional muster. (This presumes we win and I believe we will. It also presumes the Court does not apply the "strict scrutiny" test and I am confident it will not.)

I suggest we consolidate our efforts on making the best out of a bad situation. Doing anything else aids our enemies and they are numerous.

Chas.

Political common sense is not lost. Thank God. I hate that we do not have a clear cut conservative candidate with a chance of winning as much as the next guy. But at the end of the day, salvaging the situation means working with the best realistic choice, and I just don't see Rep. Paul as a realistic choice.

But that's just me.

[OverEasy]

Here is a little something for you guys that just can't drink decaf.

Psalm 75:6-7, For exaltation comes neither from the east nor the west nor from the south. But God is the Judge: He puts down one, and exalts another,(NKJV)
Also from Daniel 2:21, And He changes the times and the seasons; He removes kings and raises up kings;(NKJV)

I think God is going to give the USA just exactly the president we deserve. I don't know if that will calm you, or scare the living daylights out of you.

Yes, I vote anyway. Regards. OE

[The Annoyed Man]

I think God is going to give the USA just exactly the president we deserve. I don't know if that will calm you, or scare the living daylights out of you.

Isn't that true in any election year?

[srothstein]

But if he doesn't, if you don't vote for the Republican in the general election, no matter who it is, you're flushing your vote down the drain.

Actually, if I don't vote for the Democratic candidate I will be wasting my vote, because a Democrat is going to win the election. We just don't know yet if the next president will be named Obama, Clinton, or McCain, but whichever of the three it is, it will be a Democrat that wins.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Actually, if I don't vote for the Democratic candidate I will be wasting my vote, because a Democrat is going to win the election. We just don't know yet if the next president will be named Obama, Clinton, or McCain, but whichever of the three it is, it will be a Democrat that wins.

Oooof! What can I say to a shot up the gut like that?