Endorsing a candidate in a general election has the foreseeable result of aiding the preferred candidate at the expense of the other.
I can see that endorsing one candidate in a primary might have the effect of shifting votes from some other pro-gun candidate with the possible result of having a third, anti-gun candidate barely out-poll all of the pro-gun candidates.
For example, if FDT, hypothetically has broader appeal with the whole electorate than, say, Hunter, then it might make sense to promote FDT. But if Hunter has the broader appeal, then he might be the best candidate to support.
The point is that the best candidate based on just gun rights might not result in the best outcome for gun rights.
If I though Julie-Annie would support my gun rights, especially by selecting pro-gun Supreme Court justices, I would be for him despite his other nonsense. But he is so obviously a hypocrite on this important issue that I could never vote for him. I'll stay home that day cleaning guns and watching the Republican party elect Hillary.
That is true but in this election if they wait gun owners may very well be faced with only rabid gun grabbers to choose from in the general election.
Of the top three only Thompson is pro gun. Rooty and Mutt are no better than any of the RATS.
One of those three will be the nominee and for the NRA to wait and see is stupid and makes them worthless politically.
They waited in 92 and 96 and wound up with nobody they could endorse. Republicans lost both times as you know.
They are going to have to pull their head out of their a$$ and make a choice in the primaries this time or just lose more membership and gun rights.
Agreed, but...
You probably meant to say...
watch the liberal-RINO-wing-of-the-republican(with a small "r")-party elect hillary.
And you'll be helping them do it by staying home.