“Well, I can offer you some personal experience on that one. I ran against a Democrat in a statewide race. The incumbent Dem was very strong on gun rights (and meant it too) and got the NRA endorsement.”
So in effect, assuming that you are an NRA member, some of your dues contributed to your defeat at a Republican, all because you were the challenger. It is also apparent that second to gun rights, the NRA is firmly committed to incumbency. And incumbency does pose a problem because it firmly entrenches money and corruption in our political system.
Just because the NRA has a policy of supporting incumbents over challengers doesn’t mean that it should not consider re-evaluating that policy. There are undoubtedly high ranking members that also value conservative ideals and other aspects of the Constitution. Perhaps some of these people could re-evaluate this policy. What about polling members on a policy change? Is it wise to support pro-gun Democrats during an election that may deliver the House to the Republicans? Again, consider polling the membership to effect a change in the policy.
This isn’t just any ordinary year. We are on the cusp of sinking into a irreversible path towards socialism and a hard tyranny. The Constitution is being shredded every day. Just the other day, a judge found the 0bamacare mandates to be constitutional. Four SCOTUS judges clearly do not believe in the second amendment. The Dems and rino allies can take away our freedoms away w/o regard to the Constitution. Unfortunately, a “good” pro-gun Dem nonetheless allows the Leftist Dem leadership to attack the many aspects of Constitution. Although the Dems may not launch a direct attack on the 2nd amendment, these other attacks could lead to an eventual weakening or destruction of the second amendment (just look at the SCOTUS example and the implications of a Kennedy death with 0bama surrogate as replacement). Although the House poses a less direct threat to gun rights, they do have oversight on EPA (ammo issue), 0bamacare (gun privacy issues) among others.
I do not think that we are having a dispute on the overall direction of the county but instead we are discussing the best strategy to restore republican (”small r”) ideals. However, I’m not sure that the NRA’s current policy is the best for gun rights and our republic. Gun rights do not exist independently in a hermetically sealed vacuum. By wedding itself to incumbency as its second most important consideration, the NRA also in effect weds itself to the government establishment. The NRA should consider its membership’s opinion on these issues again or else it could go the same way as the pathetic AMA.
1. A politician in word and deed supports the 2nd Amendment, which...
2. Earns him the support of the NRA, the 500 lb gorilla in the room when it comes to 2nd Amendment issues, but...
3. When the politician is up for re-election, despite his past actions, the NRA turns his back on him due to a party affiliation that has nothing whatsoever to do with the single issue for which the NRA exists.
This brings and keeps politicians on the proper side of the Constitution in what way? This establishes a situation in which politicians give a damn what 2nd Amendment groups do or say?
And we can trust politicians' words simply because of an "R" next to their name? Are you on crack?