Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: NRA Endorses Salazar(D) over Tipton(R)

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    466

    NRA Endorses Salazar(D) over Tipton(R)

    even though both got "A" ratings.....

    Um, WTF NRA ???

    so they're willing to look the other way on the points that he voted for Obamacare and voted for Pelosi as speaker of the house,
    Last edited by RockyMtnScotsman; 10-19-2010 at 08:04 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member ooghost1oo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    262
    The NRA doesn't always seem to have the 2A's interests in mind.. They're too interested in compromise.

    That's why I'd really like to have my gun club's mandatory NRA membership allow the option of GOA instead.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by ooghost1oo View Post
    The NRA doesn't always seem to have the 2A's interests in mind.
    Oh, Joy. I saw this handwriting on the NRA's wall back in 1992, which is why I grew suspicious of their rabid, Democratic-like demand of every more funds.

    They're too interested in compromise.
    They're interested in perpetuating their organization, are unwiling to relinquish its existence if it's ever no longer needed, and are willing to hide their true agenda beneath a politicized veneer to attempt to maintain their status quo.

    Come on, folks, please take a breath hear and see what's really going on.

    That's why I'd really like to have my gun club's mandatory NRA membership allow the option of GOA instead.
    I think I'd support that 100%, but what's GOA? Gun Owners of America? If so, I'd definately support that 100%.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  4. #4
    Regular Member PikesPeakMtnMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    426
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I think I'd support that 100%, but what's GOA? Gun Owners of America? If so, I'd definately support that 100%.

    http://gunowners.org/

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187
    Quote Originally Posted by RockyMtnScotsman View Post
    even though both got "A" ratings.....

    Um, WTF NRA ???

    so they're willing to look the other way on the points that he voted for Obamacare and voted for Pelosi as speaker of the house,
    If I were to be donating time/money to a gun rights organization, I'd want them to spend their resources on oh....gun rights. Whether or not I agree with Obamacare, I don't believe it falls within NRA's or GOA's mission statements to spend time and money on fighting it. If I found out that the organization I supported for gun rights was wasting time on ANYthing other than gun rights, I'd be a bit miffed.
    Last edited by mahkagari; 10-20-2010 at 01:58 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Latest polls show Tipton ahead. Salazar is a typical pelosi boot licker, but the NRA always endorses the encumbent when both rated equally. They are a self proclaimed "one issue" organization. Salazar is pro 2A; Hitler loved dogs. One issue endorsements are moronic. There is always a reasonable tie breaker than can be applied. At least they're advertising for Buck against that pos bennet.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    Latest polls show Tipton ahead. Salazar is a typical pelosi boot licker, but the NRA always endorses the encumbent when both rated equally. They are a self proclaimed "one issue" organization.
    That makes sense. If someone is pro-2A and grades being equal, it doesn't make sense to change horses midstream.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    140
    That struck me as odd too, but then I realized why and I understand it. I think I will be voting for Tipton anyway. I really don't care who they endorsed.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Reading through this and a few other websites over the last few days, it's come to my attention that it's time to cut bait.

    If an organization purporting to endorse gun rights is spending your funds elsewhere, whether lining their pockets or hedging their best by courting the left...

    ...cut bait.

    I don't know where else we might put it at this time, but I think a small, commensurate campaign contribution of an equivalent annual amount (twenty or thirty bucks?) to whatever guy in your local, state, or federal contribution chain whom you think might do the most good is probably a better place to spend your money than on a multimillion dollar organization with a ton of overhead and not many results over the last decade.

    Such organizations must be self-limiting. If there are no such internal controls, they simply grow to fill their own fat shoes, and will continue trying to buy fatter shoes as their heft and need continue to grow.

    I don't like that!!! Mean, lean, fighting machine, provided we do it right. Always (utterly) within the law, but always geared towards enforcing the law.

    The thing of it is, the law, our law, was enacted in 1791, more than 219 years ago. Countless laws from the Supreme Court on down have ensued, many of which have been contested, and quite a few of which have been overturned.

    If anything, people, I see two things happening these days which heartens me:

    1. The Internet, particularly message forums (and thank God Mike and John went with vBulletin), has allowed widespread focus groups to...

    ...focus on issues which they feel are most pertinent. Even if it it were scraping saffron from flowers, I'd support the rights of people to do so.

    ...discuss issues pressing on the hearts and minds of our citizens. Unfortunately, there is no qualification within the First Amendment which requires an separation of heart and mind, and the two have often become intertwined over the years. Nevertheless, we press forth.

    2. An ancilliary venue involving the Internet and media at large, combined with citizen-level contributions thereof in the form of blogging, message boarding, social networking, etc.

    What I see coming out of this second venue is telling. It tells the story (mostly) of the downtrodden who've both had enough, and yet who're rather well educated and who're doing their best to move to the next stage, preferrably without violence or bloodshed.

    They're not stupid, however, and many of us have come from such backgrounds. We're not stupid either. We'd LOVE for everyone to voluntarily law down our arms, each and every one of us, criminals and all, and sing kum-ba-yah forevermore.

    Yeah, right. Only the ridiculously idiotic believe that anymore. I believe Lori Saldaņa's failed (thank GOD) AB 1394 bill tells volumes about this approach. She things us warmongers! Yet I've not drawn a firearm in 21 years of carrying, including 20 years in the military (except to load or empty it, daily...).

    Was it necessary for me to carry? Apparently the various states in which I lived respected my right to do so, and I've exercised my right to do so. While in the military, I was employed to several venues where it was required, and I dutifully did so.

    I'll be honest: I've never had to pull my firearm, and have never fired it (except in perhaps 35 training scenarios). Many of you have, whether here or abroad. Some of you have had to go far beyond what was expected. Just drop a PM - I'll go back and forth with you as long as you want. I'm still corresponding with a friend of mine with experience in the Vietnam war, if that gives you any idea of how long I've been in this game.

    As for the rest of us, we need to move on. As I said before, I'm not sure how (actually, I've got a few good ideas, but I want to hear from you).

    1. New thread?

    Piece of cake.

    2. New organization better representing the valid, rational, Constitutional, legal rights of all of us (as the author, this statement can be easily amended...)?

    A good bit more difficult to do right, but certainly possible.

    Thoughts? I'm all ears.

    - since9
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •