I’m not saying Thompson has a bad 2nd amendment record, but if the NRA were really serious about this issue they would of course endorse Ron Paul. Somehow I have a feeling that ain’t gonna happen...
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2006/11/fix-is-in-ron-paul-must-go.html
My confidence in NRA, of which I am a member, sank a bit after that little episode, I must say.
They are serious. Getting in before the primaries means they want to ensure we get a serious conservative candidate who has the best shot at defeating Hillary. And that’s why they’re not about to endorse a whacked out antiwar moonbat or a liberal gun grabber or a flip flopping RINO. The choice is obvious.
Go, FRed, Go!!
The NRA (I'm a life member too) knows Ron Paul has no chance of ever being the nominee. There would be no point in endorsing a second-tier candidate and it would just hurt the NRA's credibility. Fred is the most conservative top tier candidate and I agree that the NRA should endorse him now.
I am also tired of their monthly solicitation for money, their magazine, typical of many today, more catalog the anything else. LaPerre (spl) is willing to let the liberals erode our rights, versus telling them to FO. He debates like a pacifist.
LLS
The NRA's early decision would be to affect the process. They will want someone that is strongly pro-2A and has something better than a snowballs chance in hell of winning.
That makes Thompson a logical choice.
The NRA members I know, including myself, are also very fond of the idea of confronting islamo-facists over there and not over here. Which would make Ron Paul a throw away endorsement.
You have a strange definition of "serious". Supporting a certain loser by attempting to show some sort of "high principle" doesn't win elections and is a tragic waste of valuable influence.
If you want to positively affect the future of our country, it would be most helpful for you to support whomever has the best chance of defeating Hillary. Your approach would just give her a bigger margin and plausible claims of a mandate.
Ron Paul? SURELY YOU JEST!! ROFLOLOL
Well, aside from the fact you must know what most people aside from those on the lunatic left & a few fringe libertarians/right think of Paul’s rhetoric about the WO/Iraq/& his rapid conspiracy theories...
In practical terms please explain to me by what logic you arrive at the conclusion if the NRA is serious about protecting 2A rights that they would endorse a candidate that has no chance at winning the primary let alone the W.H.? Exactly what protection is Paul going to afford them by attaining less then 5% of the vote?
Uh, Duncan Hunter's NRA record is A+
While Ron Paul might be great on the 2nd Amendment...I don’t see the NRA endorsing a guy that has no desire at all to protect us from terrorism and should be carted out of Congress in the next available straightjacket.
Ron or Duncan. Duncan is infinitely more electable than Ron.<p.
Thompson is ok, but the GOA only gave him a C-. I trust their “no compromise” ratings more than the NRA’s.