Quantcast

Categorized | News

NRA MEMBERS NEED TO SAY ENDORSE SHARRON ANGLE!

There have been rumors of an NRA endorsement of Harry Reid in the NV Senate race.  This is a bad development.  But Sharron Angle is fighting back.  She has an organization called NRA Members for Sharron Angle. 

So I urge my readers who are NRA members to contact the NRA and let them know:  NO endorsement of Reid!  Rather YES to Angle!  She’s the RIGHT ANGLE for the NRA.  There are other fine Second Amendment orgnaizations for people to join.  Now I admire the NRA and have defended it against unfair attacks.  They do a fabulous job teaching gun safety and have always advocated severe punishment for those who use guns in crimes.  But they must not endorse Harry Reid.

About Elwood Sanders

Elwood “Sandy” Sanders is a Hanover attorney who is an Appellate Procedure Consultant for Lantagne Legal Printing and has written ten scholarly legal articles. Sandy was also Virginia’s first Appellate Defender and also helped bring curling in VA! (None of these titles imply any endorsement of Sanders’ views)

11 Responses to “NRA MEMBERS NEED TO SAY ENDORSE SHARRON ANGLE!”

  1. I can understand why you want to defeat Harry Reid, and I can understand why you wouldn’t want the NRA (or anyone, anywhere) to endorse him.

    But, do you really want to ask the NRA, or any other Second Amendment organization, to explicitly endorse Sharron Angle, given her rhetoric on “Second Amendment remedies?”

    If Sharron Angle loses in November, and someone seeks to “remedy” Harry Reid in a “Second Amendment kind of way,” a prior endorsement of Angle might put the NRA in a fairly awkward position.

    A general trend in most successful democratic republics is that some people will win elections, and some people will lose elections, but there is general agreement that the losers will not shoot the winners.

    • I’m not suere how to take the alleged Angle comment but I would try to spin it like this: She understands the feelings but does not condone the act. I never heard anything to say an incitement to violence. Aaron, your comments are thoughtful and intriguing. If you want to try a guest blog – have at it – send me a good short article about the length of your two comments together. Thanks for coming.

      Sandy

      • Thank you for your kind words about the guest blog; I will give some thought. I am honored.

        Concerning the current topic, there is plenty of tape, both video and some audio-only, of her speaking on radio shows and at meetings, so there’s no real debate about what she is “alleged” to has said – it’s on tape. However, it is quite reasonable to concerned about missing context, in terms of what her immediate audience brough to the table, what speakers might have been on before her, etc. That sort of context is easily lost when listening to a tape months or years later. Also, I’m sure all politicians have made rough off-the-cuff statements in live settings that they wish they could clarify later.

        I agree with your general assessment that Angle isn’t advocating violence, but that she is worried that others will. (I am worried that others will, too!) I am most troubled that she seems to have advanced this concern as an argument for *fighting harder for her election.* She should be able to tackle Reid on pure policy concerns, while unambiguously repudiating any talk about guns being part of the *political process* as grossly irresponsible and out of proportion with respect to current political debates. (Note I’m not talking about specific policies on the ownership of guns, i.e. who can own guns, what kind of guns, etc. I’m talking about discussions of *using guns to resolve political disputes.* Counties that tend towards that approach on a frequent basis tend not to fare well.)

    • Matt says:

      There was never any mention of shooting Harry Reid by anyone.
      This is a left wing twisting of words. Do your homework. This is rediculous and another lie by Harry’s puppets.

      • Let us explore the text of one of her statements:

        “You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said, it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, my goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you, the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”

        I did not and would not claim that Angle was specifically referring to Harry Reid being shot, or necessarily *advocating* that it would be a good idea to shoot anyone. I understand that her “take out Harry Reid” was referring to voting him out of office; it was just a bit uncomfortably close to the previous discussion about revolutions and “Second Amendment remedies.”
        In an interview with Jon Ralson, she clarified that she wasn’t advocating shooting Harry Reid – and that was, of course, fairly obvious – but she didn’t elucidate much further on the general issue of “Second Amendment remedies.” You are correct that articles with headlines like “Angle Admits That Her Suggestion to Shoot Harry Reid Was ‘A Little Strong'” (as appeared in Mother Jones) were twisting her words.

        I mentioned Harry Reid as a hypothetical person that might be the target of violence if “this Congress keeps going the way it is.” I probably should have used a generic “someone” in that sentence.

        My main point is that all this 2nd-Amendment talk may play particularly well with Angle’s base, but outside of that it sounds a little creepy, and it sounds creepy without any particular editing or pundit-supplied spin around the quotes.

      • Let us explore the text of one of her statements:

        “You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said, it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, my goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you, the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”

        I did not and would not claim that Angle was specifically referring to Harry Reid being shot, or necessarily *advocating* that it would be a good idea to shoot anyone. I understand that her “take out Harry Reid” was referring to voting him out of office; it was just a bit uncomfortably close to the previous discussion about revolutions and “Second Amendment remedies.” In an interview with Jon Ralson, she clarified that she wasn’t advocating shooting Harry Reid – and that was, of course, fairly obvious – but she didn’t elucidate much further on the general issue of “Second Amendment remedies.” You are correct that articles with headlines like “Angle Admits That Her Suggestion to Shoot Harry Reid Was ‘A Little Strong'” (as appeared in Mother Jones) were twisting her words.

        I mentioned Harry Reid as a hypothetical person that might be the target of violence if “this Congress keeps going the way it is.” I probably should have used a generic “someone” in that sentence.

        My main point is that all this 2nd-Amendment talk may play particularly well with Angle’s base, but outside of that it sounds a little creepy, and it sounds creepy without any particular editing or pundit-supplied spin around the quotes.

  2. Something else I just thought of…

    An NRA endorsement of Angle might actually hurt her chances, since it would likely draw *more attention* to her original strong 2nd Amendment rhetoric (probably helpful in winning the primary election), which she seems to be trying to tone down lately (since such rhetoric is less likely to help her in a general election.)

  3. Spike says:

    This NRA Life Member was going to become an endowment member. Not anymore. Between this endorsement and playing footsie with the administration to shut up the other groups but allow the NRA to speak out sounds like feeding the crocodile hoping it will eat you last.

  4. Spike says:

    Let us remember that Harry Reid has the money to hire the best wordsmiths in the world and his only chance of beating Sharron is to paint her as being a worse choice than him. If he can keep her on the defensive, he doesn’t have to talk about his miserable record or defend all the Obama agenda he has strong-armed into law.

  5. Spike says:

    It is a mark of the times that people quake when they are told the true reason for the 2nd Amendment. Sorry, but it wasn’t about an individual’s defense. That is just used to not scare people and give the left ammo.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. […] There have been rumors of an NRA endorsement of Harry Reid in the NV Senate race.  This is a bad development.  But Sharron Angle is fighting back.  She has an organization called NRA Members… Read the rest […]


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge

Tom White Says:

Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

Check out NewsMax!

Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
* = required field

Submit a Blog Post!

Submit a Blog Post for our 'Boots on the Ground' feature

Click Here for Instructions on How to Submit a Post

Google Ad

Google Ad

Follow Us Anywhere!

Google Ad

Archives

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
%d bloggers like this: