I Never Thought I Would Be Saying This About The N.R.A.,but....!!

ADK

New member
I've dismissed the criticism of the N.R.A. as being just the rantings of a few disgruntled members or maybe even some anti's operating covertly. But, now I'm convinced the N.R.A. bashers have a valid argument. Scott Murphy, D-NY is the congressman representing my congressional district and he is up for re-election. Since elected two years ago, Murphy has voted lock-step in support of the Obama,Pelosi,Reid agenda. Right up to the congressional vote on Obamacare,Murphy was telling his constituents that he would vote against the bill. Guess what? The next day he flipped and voted FOR Obamacare.
In today's newspaper I find the following headline; "Murphy wins NRA endorsement for campaign". As a 45 year Life Member and more recently an Endowment Member of the NRA you can imagine my surprise. In the same article it states "Republican challenger Chris Gibson received the highest NRA rating possible". Gibson's campaign responded by saying "The NRA endorsement process is incumbent friendly".
My support for the NRA is suspended until I hear an acceptable rational for why the NRA would endorse a left of center Democrat over a right of center Republican with a higher NRA rating.
 
I didn't think the NRA actually endorsed candidates, just rated them based on their stance on the Second Amendment. Make sure the "news" or Murphy's campaign isn't pulling a fast one on you by claiming an endorsement that's not really there. A good grade does not an endorsement make.
 
Originally Posted By: DesertRamI didn't think the NRA actually endorsed candidates, just rated them based on their stance on the Second Amendment. Make sure the "news" or Murphy's campaign isn't pulling a fast one on you by claiming an endorsement that's not really there. A good grade does not an endorsement make.

You make an excellent point Desertram. I contacted the Gibson campaign office and they are seeking an official statement from the NRA. I also emailed the NRA asking for verification/clarification but have not yet received a response.
 
I just took the following from the NRA-PVF website. I hope that in the NRA's infinite wisdom they have made a wise decision in this congressional race. Personally, I find that difficult to believe. I question the wisdom of endorsing a left leaning Democrat who has a well established voting record supporting Obama's far left policy's. Chris Gibson,the Republican/Conservative in this race has the support of the Conservative Party and the Tea Party. He is recently retired from the U.S. Army with the rank of colonel. He graduated from West Point, served 4 combat tours in Iraq and was awarded 4 Bronze Stars and the Purple Heart. Chris Gibson holds a masters degree and a P.H.D. in Government. He is a true patriot and an ardent defender of the Second Ammendment as well as our nation. I for one,smell rotten fish in the NRA's smokehouse and will not support the organization until they have convinced me of the wisdom of this decision. I suggest that we all keep a close eye on the NRA. I not only smell rotten fish but I also smell a sell-out.





NRA Political Victory Fund: Making Endorsements Count

Thursday, August 26, 2010

America is heading full-tilt into an election cycle that offers tremendous opportunities. In primaries and special elections that have already occurred, we've seen voters fired up to protect our constitutional rights. Your NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) is working to have the greatest possible impact on this critical election cycle. Between now and November, we'll be issuing our candidate endorsements in thousands of elections across the country.

We've received letters, e-mails and phone calls from NRA members who had questions about some of our endorsements and want to know how we make these important decisions. Here's a brief explanation of our policies:

First and most important, NRA-PVF is non-partisan in issuing its candidate grades and endorsements. We do not base our grades or endorsement decisions on a candidate's party affiliation-period. Rather, we look at a candidate's record on our Right to Keep and Bear Arms; answers to our candidate questionnaires; public statements and involvement in Second Amendment issues.

We do this because NRA is a single-issue organization. There are many other issues a candidate must address with voters; obviously, many folks look at candidates' positions across the board. But our longtime election slogan-"Vote Freedom First"-reflects our hope that our members and all gun owners will put Second Amendment issues in the forefront when they make their voting decisions.

Next, NRA-PVF has an incumbent-friendly policy that requires our support for pro-gun lawmakers seeking re-election. Again, this is regardless of political party. Whether in Congress or the state legislatures, it is critical that we stand with our friends who have stood with us. Actions speak louder than words, so a concrete voting record trumps untested words of support. We also consider a candidate's other actions, both public and behind the scenes, such as pushing for votes on critical bills or lobbying colleagues. (Of course, if a pro-gun challenger wins an election and supports our rights, that person will get our support when it's his or her turn to stand for re-election.)

Unfortunately, this is the hardest policy for some to understand. Especially this year, when many voters are in a mood to "throw 'em all out," we hear from many members who disagree with our support of certain incumbent lawmakers. But while voters' tempers are understandably running high, we also need to remember political reality. If we don't support those who've stood shoulder to shoulder with us, there will be no incentive for other lawmakers to stand up to the biased media and the anti-gun lobby.

When an incumbent lawmaker is a-rated and endorsed for re-election by NRA-PVF, that person has been tested over time and has voted to protect our rights. Some may disagree with the candidate on other issues, but an NRA-PVF endorsement reflects support for the Second Amendment.

That doesn't mean other candidates are left out in the cold. Many of them have held other offices, and we always review the votes they cast. And for all candidates, but especially for those who've never held office or built up a voting record, we issue detailed candidate questionnaires. As mentioned earlier, candidates' voting records and questionnaire answers are evaluated, along with their public statements and involvement in Second Amendment issues.

All of this information is reviewed and we issue a grade ranging from "A" to "F." But we also don't make an endorsement in every race. The NRA-PVF endorsement is not given lightly--it must be earned.

Finally, we're often asked about endorsements in judicial races. NRA-PVF generally does not issue endorsements in judicial elections because they often involve unique issues. Judges, unlike legislators, often do not have voting records, so NRA-PVF can only make evaluations based upon past legal opinions (if any) and public statements on firearm-related issues.

In addition, states have different codes of judicial conduct. Often, they have statutes that restrict judicial candidates from announcing their views on issues that may come before their courts. While we welcome information from our members on judicial candidates, members should also know that an NRA-PVF endorsement in a judicial race is an exception to the rule.

We've followed these policies for decades and they've proven time and again that they're the fair and responsible approach to take. Even if you don't agree 100 percent with NRA-PVF`s endorsement decisions, I hope this explanation is helpful. We know there are no perfect systems, but for an organization to be effective in the political arena it must issue grades and endorsements in a fair, consistent and credible manner. At the end of the day, the most important thing is for you, your friends, your family and your fellow gun owners to Vote Freedom First.




 
The NRA doesn't make endorsements, but the NRAPVF does. As the post says "The NRA endorsement process is incumbent friendly". That's absolutely true and freely admitted to by the NRAPVF. They base endorsements on (only) 2nd amendment voting records, and only incumbents have voting records.

When the NRA Political Victory Fund makes an endorsement it is only a statement on the endorsee's voting record on 2nd amendment issues.

I give money to the NRA and the NRAILA, but NOT the NRAPVF for exactly that reason.
 
Originally Posted By: nmleonThe NRA doesn't make endorsements, but the NRAPVF does. As the post says "The NRA endorsement process is incumbent friendly". That's absolutely true and freely admitted to by the NRAPVF. They base endorsements on (only) 2nd amendment voting records, and only incumbents have voting records.

When the NRA Political Victory Fund makes an endorsement it is only a statement on the endorsee's voting record on 2nd amendment issues.

I give money to the NRA and the NRAILA, but NOT the NRAPVF for exactly that reason.

So it appears to me the NRA has opposing factions within it's organization. Has the NRA become to big to fail?
 
No, not opposing factions at all, just sub organizations dedicated to different aspects of 2nd amendment issues.

The NRA (the parent) covers general firearms issues including membership drives, hunting, shooting sports etc.

The NRAILA (Institute of Legislative Action) lobbys and fights in court for 2nd amendment legislative issues.

The NRAPVF (Political Victory Fund) supports political candidates with a record of voting pro 2nd amendment, which of course means that the politician is normally an incumbent, since otherwise he wouldn't have a voting record.

Some folks think the NRA has turned traitor to the conservative cause, but the truth is that they have never been a conservative organization per se, it just seemed that way for a long time when pretty much all Dems were anti gun. Nowadays there are quite a few Dems who may be liberal on other issues, but who are pro gun and 2nd amendment.

The NRA, NRAILA, and NRAPVF are collectively a single issue organization. They don't care (organizationally) about the economy, welfare, abortion, etc, etc, etc, they ONLY care about 2nd amendment issues.

The NRA has never claimed to be anything other than what they are, and haven't changed at all in their basic mission. They have always been straight up about that mission.
 
I, as well as several of my friends, cut up NRA membership cards and mailed them back to them.

There's enough political bs in Washington. I don't need it in any organization that is supposedly there to protect and defend the constitution.
 
Originally Posted By: nmleonThe NRAPVF (Political Victory Fund) supports political candidates with a record of voting pro 2nd amendment, which of course means that the politician is normally an incumbent, since otherwise he wouldn't have a voting record.

That's exactly my point Leon. You and the NRA-PVF are oversimplifying a complex issue and that is a dangerous mistake for the defense of the Second Amendment. Have you noticed how the democrats currently running are suddenly either silent on the gun issues or born-again pro-gun defenders of the Second Amendment? They've taken a different tact and the NRA is falling into the trap. I'm sending my money to the GOA from now on.
 
Originally Posted By: nmleonNo, not opposing factions at all, just sub organizations dedicated to different aspects of 2nd amendment issues.

The NRA (the parent) covers general firearms issues including membership drives, hunting, shooting sports etc.

The NRAILA (Institute of Legislative Action) lobbys and fights in court for 2nd amendment legislative issues.

The NRAPVF (Political Victory Fund) supports political candidates with a record of voting pro 2nd amendment, which of course means that the politician is normally an incumbent, since otherwise he wouldn't have a voting record.

Some folks think the NRA has turned traitor to the conservative cause, but the truth is that they have never been a conservative organization per se, it just seemed that way for a long time when pretty much all Dems were anti gun. Nowadays there are quite a few Dems who may be liberal on other issues, but who are pro gun and 2nd amendment.

The NRA, NRAILA, and NRAPVF are collectively a single issue organization. They don't care (organizationally) about the economy, welfare, abortion, etc, etc, etc, they ONLY care about 2nd amendment issues.

The NRA has never claimed to be anything other than what they are, and haven't changed at all in their basic mission. They have always been straight up about that mission.




+1
In order to maintain their tax-exempt status, NRA has to jump through these loops and form "sub-organizations". To make so many "mistakes", they sure have a lot of successes under their (our)belts. It would be a bleak outlook without NRA (and the several smaller pro=gun organizations).

Regards,
hm
 
Quote:Quote:The NRAPVF (Political Victory Fund) supports political candidates with a record of voting pro 2nd amendment, which of course means that the politician is normally an incumbent, since otherwise he wouldn't have a voting record.

That's exactly my point Leon. You and the NRA-PVF are oversimplifying a complex issue and that is a dangerous mistake for the defense of the Second Amendment.

I'm not oversimplifying or defending the NRAPVF, and in fact while I send money to the the NRA amd the NRAILA, I don't support the NRAPVF just because I DO believe there should be more to it than just a candidate's 2nd amendment voting record.



Quote:Have you noticed how the democrats currently running are suddenly either silent on the gun issues or born-again pro-gun defenders of the Second Amendment? They've taken a different tact and the NRA is falling into the trap.

No.

A "sudden" conversion to a pro 2nd amendment stance won't get you an endorsement from NRAPVF for exactly the same reason that they won't endorse a candidate challenging an incumbent who makes pro 2nd amendment speeches. The NRAPVF doesn't even consider what a candidate says, they care exclusively about a voting track record in congress. A "sudden" conversion doesn't create a years long voting record.



Quote:I'm sending my money to the GOA from now on.

Good group, and I've sent them money too, but they don't have the lobbying or legal clout of the NRA.



All I can say to any of you guys withdrawing support for the NRA is that you have no one to blame but yourselves.

The NRA hasn't changed at all and has always been very open about their mission and goals...you just weren't (apparently) paying attention.
 
Quote: Have you noticed how the democrats currently running are suddenly either silent on the gun issues or born-again pro-gun defenders of the Second Amendment?

And this is a bad thing, how? Why do you suppose this is, if not pressure from the NRA (and other smaller groups)?

GOA and several other groups are good organizations, but
even congress can't ignore 4 million members and NRA is the only organization that boasts that many members.

Regards,
hm
 
Originally Posted By: hm1996 Quote: Have you noticed how the democrats currently running are suddenly either silent on the gun issues or born-again pro-gun defenders of the Second Amendment?

And this is a bad thing, how? Why do you suppose this is, if not pressure from the NRA (and other smaller groups)?

GOA and several other groups are good organizations, but
even congress can't ignore 4 million members and NRA is the only organization that boasts that many members.

Regards,
hm

The leopard may have lost it's spots, but it's the same leopard. If you've been reading your Rifleman/Hunter magazine you know that the democrats are using a different approach to gun control. They have come to the realization that it is more difficult to circumvent the Constitution than they originally thought. Obama's World Governance plan,if realized,will render the Constitution and the Second Amendment, irrelevant. Using this new tactic the dems. hope they can continue to get elected/re-elected and ensure that Obama's total transformation of America will be achieved. The NRA,knowingly or not,is being brought into the "Coalitions of Power" Obama praised so highly during his campain.
 
Originally Posted By: ADKI've dismissed the criticism of the N.R.A. as being just the rantings of a few disgruntled members or maybe even some anti's operating covertly. But, now I'm convinced the N.R.A. bashers have a valid argument. Scott Murphy, D-NY is the congressman representing my congressional district and he is up for re-election. Since elected two years ago, Murphy has voted lock-step in support of the Obama,Pelosi,Reid agenda. Right up to the congressional vote on Obamacare,Murphy was telling his constituents that he would vote against the bill. Guess what? The next day he flipped and voted FOR Obamacare.
In today's newspaper I find the following headline; "Murphy wins NRA endorsement for campaign". As a 45 year Life Member and more recently an Endowment Member of the NRA you can imagine my surprise. In the same article it states "Republican challenger Chris Gibson received the highest NRA rating possible". Gibson's campaign responded by saying "The NRA endorsement process is incumbent friendly".
My support for the NRA is suspended until I hear an acceptable rational for why the NRA would endorse a left of center Democrat over a right of center Republican with a higher NRA rating.



i see the same here ADK, just opened the newspaper to find out that NRA is endorsing Dem. frank kratovil in my state of MD. over Rep. Andy Harris who has a A rating with the NRA. kratovil is pelosi's lapdog. everybody keeps saying that the NRA is only concerned with the 2nd amendment but what about the other rights? when they endorse a candidate that doesn't care about the latter they are saying to me that they care less about them. the 2nd amendment is a right, but without the others what is it? when the NRA endorses a candidate that votes on bills that will destroy this country just because he voted on one bill that the NRA liked. sounds self destruction to me.
 
Quote:If you've been reading your Rifleman/Hunter magazine you know that the democrats are using a different approach to gun control. They have come to the realization that it is more difficult to circumvent the Constitution than they originally thought. Obama's World Governance plan,if realized,will render the Constitution and the Second Amendment, irrelevant. Using this new tactic the dems. hope they can continue to get elected/re-elected and ensure that Obama's total transformation of America will be achieved. The NRA,knowingly or not,is being brought into the "Coalitions of Power" Obama praised so highly during his campain.


Quote: Right up to the congressional vote on Obamacare,Murphy was telling his constituents that he would vote against the bill. Guess what? The next day he flipped and voted FOR Obamacare.
In today's newspaper I find the following headline; "Murphy wins NRA endorsement for campaign". As a 45 year Life Member and more recently an Endowment Member of the NRA you can imagine my surprise. In the same article it states "Republican challenger Chris Gibson received the highest NRA rating possible". Gibson's campaign responded by saying "The NRA endorsement process is incumbent friendly".


Cannot disagree with the above points. Our congressman has an A+ rating from PVF (remember, PVF is only a branch of NRA), yet his record reveals a 100% pro-spending bill vote. His opponent received an A rating, based on his answers to NRA's questions only....remember, he has no voting record.

Today's voter must be sophisticated enough to sort through all the BS and get down to a candidate's position overall, not just single issue items. PVF makes it simpler to research the candidate's firearms voting record, and as such, is just another tool to be used in making an intelligent decision.

We all know the NRA is a single issue organization and we must be sufficiently astute to integrate all aspects before casting our vote. This does not detract from the positive pro-gun accomplishments the NRA has made over the years in defending our cherished 2nd Amendment rights. Just look at the recent supreme court ruling in the DC gun ban case, the thirty some states which have passed CC laws, etc., etc.

The fact that the current administration cannot circumvent the 2nd amendment and is forced to go outside the box " Using this new tactic the dems. hope they can continue to get elected/re-elected and ensure that Obama's total transformation of America will be achieved." is in large part due to the NRA's role of fighting in the courts and at the polls and in the various legislatures through the years. Is NRA the only player on our team? No, but they are by far the largest and most feared by politicians, and as such deserve our support.

Regards,
hm
 
NRA/PVF is having some of us Iowans scratching our heads as
well. They have endorsed Chet Culver (D) for his signing of
a Right to Carry bill. This guy is the most "leftist" governor
we've had since I moved to this state in '76. It surprised most
of us that he ever signed such a bill. The Republican candidate
running against good o' Chit is ex-Governor Jerry Branstad, who
ALSO has a gubenatorial pro-2d Amendment voting record, and has
been an avid pheasant hunter. Apparently PVF is considering
ONLY incumbunts' voting records, even though the opponent has
held the same office.

I can agree that NRA could use a bit more of a wake-up call, as
I am not satisfied with their explanation, especially in the
above case...........perhaps take away their allowance until
they wake up. Surely, they would not ignore our pleas as
Obama does, surely.
 
Originally Posted By: TimMI, as well as several of my friends, cut up NRA membership cards and mailed them back to them.

There's enough political bs in Washington. I don't need it in any organization that is supposedly there to protect and defend the constitution. Same here when they endorsed HARRY REID! And I told them so a few times. F*** just look at his voting record.
 
Originally Posted By: ozzyOriginally Posted By: TimMI, as well as several of my friends, cut up NRA membership cards and mailed them back to them.

There's enough political bs in Washington. I don't need it in any organization that is supposedly there to protect and defend the constitution. Same here when they endorsed HARRY REID! And I told them so a few times. F*** just look at his voting record.

PVF does not endorsed Harry Reid! Not sure where you got that idea. Go toNRA-PVF rating for NV Senate Race then click on Senate and you will see that their rating is:

Quote:Sharron Angle (R) Grade: A
Status: Candidate


*Harry Reid (D) Grade: B
Status: Incumbent


Take a look at recent accomplishments so aptly enumerated by ADK in another thread: It's True, It's Not Your Grandfather's NRA.

Quote:ADK:
It's gotten better. Is there another organization that can
claim the following?

< Got Right-To-Carry laws passed in 40 states.
< Defeated the U.N gun-ban treaty...at least for now.
< Blocked higher health care premiums for gun owners.
< Defeated the Clinton gun-ban extension.
< Got the Armed Pilots Program passed.
< Stopped baseless lawsuits against America's firearms
industry.
< Got the Disaster Recovery Peronal Protection Act passed.
< Got hunter protection laws passed in all 50 states.
< Won the District of Columbia v. Heller lawsuit in the
SCOTUS.
< Won McDonald v. Chicago in the SCOTUS.

If there is,I'll join that organization too.


Weigh these benefits against that one political evaluation made by a subdivision within the NRA with which you disagree and ask yourself if NRA is an organization worthy of your support?

I have been an NRA member for over 60 years and watched as gun rights were stripped from the UK, Australia, Canada, and so on and firmly believe that but for the NRA we would also be on that list.
I think I'll stick with the horse what brung me.

Regards,
hm
 
Back
Top