Skip to main content

See also:

Flawed NRA ratings plague North Carolina races

NRA continues to support anti-gun Rep. Hugh Holliman against better challenger
NRA continues to support anti-gun Rep. Hugh Holliman against better challenger Image courtesy of Grass Roots North Carolina

Consistent NRA endorsement of incumbent Democrats with poor voting records promotes “status quo” in a North Carolina legislature which consistently refuses hearings to pro-gun bills…

Previous articles on 2010 candidate ratings and endorsements have focused on a few high profile congressional races and reasons why the NRA rating system is flawed. Let us now examine lesser known races in which we will compare NRA ratings with the percentage of the time a given candidate has voted with gun owners, plus his or her GRNC evaluation. Generally speaking, in this and earlier years, the NRA seems to award incumbents with less than perfect gun rights voting records about a one letter upgrade from what they actually deserve, perhaps as part of its “friendly incumbent” policy.

Candidates who lack voting records:
Speaking of the NRA’s incumbent policy, NRA apologists have responded to GRNC-PVF support for challengers such as Jeff Miller in the 11th Congressional District by asking, “So beside turning in a survey, what has Miller done for gun rights?” While a survey score is certainly less reliable in predicting candidate behavior than a voting record (which is weighed more heavily in “Remember in November” evaluations), the argument suggests we should never elect a candidate who lacks a voting record. Ignoring, for a moment, the apologists’ circular argument (how will they get a voting record if we don’t aren’t elect them?), failing to support new candidates who are anxious to lead on gun issues denies us new gun rights leaders, damning us to “business as usual” erosion of individual freedom.

Typos and errors:
Since NRA apologists have highlighted a single typographical error in GRNC-PVF Alert 10-14-10, which incorrectly put Republican Bryan Holloway in the wrong district, which should be District 91. (My fat-fingered typing is at fault: the “Remember in November” voter guides list him correctly). Therefore, the following includes not only systematic flaws in NRA ratings, but omitted voting records and other NRA errata.

Important note:
What follows are only those races where critical differences exist between GRNC evaluations and NRA ratings/endorsements. For a full listing of candidates, voting records, bill support and other information plus GRNC-PVF voting recommendations, go to: www.GRNC.org

CRITICAL RACES FOR NC GUN OWNERS

NC House District 81 (Davidson County):
As House Majority Leader, Hugh Holliman repeatedly advised callers he would not use his leadership to obtain a committee hearing for Castle Doctrine bill SB 928, despite overwhelming passage from the Senate and the fact that the primary sponsor, Sen. Doug Berger, was from his own Democrat Party. Under Holliman’s leadership, the Democrat-led North Carolina House killed no less than nine bills intended to improve self-defense and bolster gun rights. (1) Moreover, in 5 terms of office, Holliman has voted only 61% of the time, earning GRNC’s lowest 0-star evaluation. Regardless, the NRA endorsed him over challenger Rayne Brown, who scored 100% on GRNC’s candidate survey, received an “AQ” rating from the NRA, and whom NRA representative Anthony Roullette describes as a “pro Second Amendment/pro-hunting candidate who supports gun owners and sportsmen” in the accompanying letter. GRNC Political Victory Fund (GRNC-PVF) recommends you vote Rayne Brown for NCH-81.

NC House District 41 (Wake):
A late survey from Republican Tom Murry elevates him to a GRNC 3-star (***) evaluation after turning in a survey with a reasonable 84%. NRA lists Democrat opponent Chris Heagerty with a somewhat inflated B+. Heagerty returned GRNC’s survey with 76%, earning only a 2-star (**) evaluation. While neither candidate distinguishes himself as a Second Amendment supporter in this liberal district, GRNC-PVF recommends you vote for Tom Murry.

NC House District 51 (Harnett, Lee):
NRA endorsed incumbent Jimmy Love against challenger Michael Stone despite the fact that Love, in 7 terms in the House, voted with gun owners only 78% of the time, earning a GRNC 3-star (***) evaluation. Stone answered GRNC’s candidate survey with 96%, earning four stars (****). GRNC-PVF recommends you vote for Michael Stone.

NC House District 88 (Alexander, Catawba):
The NRA correctly endorsed pro-gun challenger Mark Hollo (GRNC ****), but gave him only an “AQ” indicating the rating was based solely on a survey response. In actuality, Hollo previously served in the NC House, earning a perfect 100% pro-gun voting record. GRNC-PVF strongly recommends you vote for Mark Hollo.

US HOUSE

Mike McIntyre (D-7):
Rated A with endorsement from the NRA, incumbent Democrat McIntyre voted with gun owners only 73% of the time, earning a GRNC 2-star (**) evaluation. GOP challenger Ilario Pantano returned GRNC’s survey with 96%, earning 4 stars (****). GRNC-PVF recommends you vote for Illario Pantano.

NC SENATE

NC Senate District 14:
Despite a long history of antipathy to gun rights, the NRA rated incumbent Democrat Dan Blue with a C+. Blue has voted with gun owners only 38% of the time, earning GRNC’s lowest 0-star evaluation. Although challenger Geoffrey Hurlburt failed to return GRNC’s survey, earning a 0-star evaluation, those in the district might be well advised to vote “anybody but Blue.”

NC Senate District 25:
NRA ratings endorse challenger Jason Phibbs with an A- rather than an “AQ,” suggesting Phibbs has a voting record, yet GRNC has no record of previous offices served by him. (Admittedly, it is difficult to track candidates who run for different offices, so if anyone has data on this, we are interested.) At least they endorsed him over anti-gun incumbent Bill Purcell, who does not deserve the NRA C- they gave him, having voted with gun owners only 58% of the time and earning a GRNC 1-star (*) evaluation.

NC Senate District 37:
Although Republican challenger Morgan Edwards didn’t answer NRA’s or GRNC’s survey, the NRA endorsement of incumbent Democrat Daniel Clodfelter, including an A- rating fails to account for Clodfelter’s poor 71% pro-gun voting record, earning only a GRNC 1-star (*) evaluation.

NC Senate District 38:
The NRA rating of C- given to incumbent Democrat Charley Dannelly is ridiculous. Beyond his having voted with gun owners only 32% of the time, during debate over North Carolina’s concealed handgun law, he protested by parading around the chamber with a toy pistol handing over from his belt over his crotch, in an apparent comment on why lawful North Carolinians wanted the right to carry concealed for self-protection.

NC Senate District 49:
NRA should have endorsed challenger RL Clark against incumbent Democrat Martin Nesbitt. Despite an inflated NRA “B-“ rating, Nesbitt has voted with gun owners only 67% of the time, earning a GRNC 1-star (*) evaluation. By contrast, in RL Clark’s previous service in the NC Senate, he garnered a 100% pro-gun voting record and GRNC’s highest (****) evaluation. GRNC-PVF recommends you vote for RL Clark.

NC HOUSE

NC House District 10:
The NRA awarded incumbent Democrat Van Braxton an inflated A- despite his mediocre 78% pro-gun voting record, which earned a GRNC 3-star (***) evaluation. In previous service in the General Assembly, Republican challenger Stephen LaRoque garnered a 100% pro-gun voting record, earning GRNC’s highest 4-star (****) evaluation. GRNC-PVF recommends you vote for Stephen LaRoque.

NC House District 12:
The NRA gave an A and endorsement to incumbent Democrat William Wainwright despite his mediocre 79% voting record. Republican challenger Mark Griffin responded to GRNC’s survey with a 96%, earning 4 stars (****). GRNC-PVF recommends you vote for Mark Griffin.

NC House District 20:
NRA-endorsed incumbent Democrat Dewey Hill seems to have gotten the characteristic one letter upgrade for incumbency: His 89% voting record earned a GRNC 3-star evaluation, in contrast to a 100% survey and GRNC 4-star (****) evaluation earned by Republican challenger Tristan Patterson. GRNC-PVF recommends you vote for Tristan Patterson.

NC House District 22:
Incumbent Democrat William Brisson received a grossly inflated A- with endorsement from the NRA despite his anti-gun 67% voting record which earned only a GRNC 1-star (*) evaluation. Republican challenger John Szoka turned in a perfect 100% survey, earning a GRNC 4-star (****) evaluation. GRNC-PVF recommends you vote for John Szoka.

NC House District 23:
NRA endorsed incumbent Democrat Joe Tolson, inflating him to an A- rating despite his 75% voting record, which earned only a GRNC 2-star (**) evaluation. Republican challenger Garland Shepheard turned in an 87% survey, earning a GRNC 3-star (***) evaluation. GRNC-PVF recommends you vote for Garland Shepheard.

NC House District 46:
No NRA endorsement here, but an inflated B to incumbent Democrat Douglas Yongue, whose 69% voting record earned only 2 stars (**) from GRNC. Challenger Gaston Pridgen turned in an 86% survey, earning 3 stars (***) from GRNC.GRNC-PVF recommends you vote for Gaston Pridgen.

NC House District 48:
No NRA endorsement here, but an inflated B- to incumbent Democrat Garland Pierce, who voted with gun owners only 62% of the time, earning a GRNC 1-star (*) evaluation. Challenger John Harry turned in a GRNC 98% survey, earning 4 stars (****).GRNC-PVF recommends you vote for John Harry.

NC House District 50:
No NRA endorsement here, but an inflated B+ to incumbent Democrat Bill Faison, who voted with gun owners only 69% of the time, earning a GRNC 2-star (**) evaluation. Challenger Rick Smith turned in a GRNC 100% survey, earning 4 stars (****). GRNC-PVF recommends you vote for Rick Smith.

NC House District 93:
No NRA endorsement here, but an inflated C to incumbent Democrat Cullie Tarleton, whose 67% voting record earned only a GRNC 2-star (**) evaluation. Challenger Jonathan Jordan turned in a 91% survey, earning a GRNC 4-star (****) evaluation. GRNC-PVF recommends you vote for Jonathan Jordan.

NC House District 118:
No NRA endorsement here, but a grossly inflated C+ to incumbent Democrat Ray Rapp, whose extremely anti-gun 58% voting record earned only a GRNC 1-star (*) evaluation. Challenger Samuel Edwards turned in a 94% survey, earning a GRNC 4-star (****) evaluation. GRNC-PVF recommends you vote for Samuel Edwards.

NC House District 119:
No NRA endorsement here, but an inflated C+ to incumbent Democrat Phil Haire, whose 63% voting record earned only a GRNC 0-star evaluation. Challenger Dodie Allen turned in an 82% survey and earning a GRNC 3-star (***) evaluation. GRNC-PVF recommends you vote for Dodie Allen.

TO GRNC SUPPORTERS:

NRA apologists will doubtless attempt to tie us up and distract from GRNC’s election efforts by demanding to know specifically which bills a given candidate voted for or against. All should understand that GRNc is far more open in explaining how candidate evaluations are arrived at then the NRA, which does not routinely release information on how its ratings are derived.

Accordingly, given 300+ candidates and votes being tracked back to 1994, requests for candidate specific records will be processed as follows: GRNC members with fully paid Life and Benefactor memberships or with five consecutive years of paid membership may receive up to three (3) such requests free of charge. All others may obtain them for a GRNC donation of $50 per candidate by mailing requests to: “Flawed NRA Ratings Verification,” Grass Roots North Carolina, P.O. Box 10665, Raleigh, NC 27605. All orders will be processed after November 2.

Comments

  • VETTOM III 3 years ago

    The NRA has been doing a number on its members for years. I am sorry to say I am a Life member. In the NC General Assembly, the NRA has given the "A" rating to anti gunners for "compromise". What BS. I have been in the GA and walked the halls, sat in committee meetings and seen it. WHERE WERE YOU? So for all you OT who think the NRA is the "answer" well the hokiest ratings are just that. In some of their ratings, they probably get a few right, but clearly they are WRONG on a number of these. For a Democratically controlled House, who has succeeded in sitting on the Castle Doctrine for all NC'ers, where is the NRA to deal with all the Dems? The NRA has been compromising our gun rights away since 1934, 1968, 1994 and on and on. Get the message I did long ago, the NRA doesn't get my $$, it goes to GRNC, GOA, SAF and JFPO. The truth bites and the NRA doesn't get it. .

  • Rusty Shackleford 3 years ago

    en-
    Did you really say that the NRA did not oppose Sotomeyer?

    Try google again!

  • David Regnery 3 years ago

    The NRA has endorsed Democrat Hugh (the Castle Doctrine Killer) Holliman in NC District 81 rather than Republican Rayne Brown, who is a genuine supporter of the Second Amendment. You can't tell me that his majority status has not bought him special favor with the NRA.

    What I'd wish the NRA would do is use their clout to the advantage of gun owners. It is one thing to skew the rating system to favor incumbents it is another to betray the trust of the gun voting public. When I worked for the late Ham Horton during his 1994 election the NRA endorsed the sitting state senator, Ted Kaplan. Then raised his rating from C to A and then endorsed him. Later as the election tightened up they issued orange alerts claim Ted was a gun supporter. Say what you will but this was an absolute falsehood. Kaplan support the assault weapons ban, limiting the number of handguns someone could purchase, as well as other Second Amendment infringements.

    Thankfully, Kaplan was defeated. One of the reasons we even have a conceal carry law is because of the efforts of Senator Ham Horton and his embrace of the Second Amendment. Sadly, the NRA continues to misrepresent the voting records of incumbents.

    The advent of social media and the ease at which research can be conducted will sting the NRA. The discussion occurring here is taking place across the country. The NRA needs to take a step back, realize that gun owners are becoming better informed, and re-evaluate their pro-incumbent position. Imagine the real success they could have for the Second Amendment if they channeled their efforts toward an uncompromising Second Amendment defense.

    GRNC is to the the NRA what the Tea Party is the Republican Party-purist, who tire of the erosion of freedom which has been sacrificed at the political alter. I would rather fight and lose than compromise my principles to only suffer a partial defeat.

  • Ken Soderstrom 3 years ago

    Um, unless Wayne Pierre was somehow taken hostage and forced to confess that NRA and Harry "Sotomayor and Kagan, please" Reid and have had a "long-standing and productive relationship..." then, yes, NRA has supported Harry Reid. But maybe Reid's campagn manager is over-stating what really happened (maybe it was too many martinis: isn't that what you fat-cats like)?

    Here's Harry's campaign manager bragging about it:

    http://www.harryreid.com/ee/index.php/news/release/statement_of_reid_cam...

    It seems like if it wasn't for Kagan, NRA would be pushing Harry as hard as it's pushing "Shut 'em Up" Shuler.

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/07/01/nra-now-leans-toward-endorsing-...

  • Ken Soderstrom 3 years ago

    But NRA was kind enough to Reid to not completely "dis" him by supporting Sharon Angle - even though Sharon Angle clearly supports the Second Amendment and rest of the Constitution (including the First - that Reid, "Shut 'em Up" Shuler and inexplicably NRA attacked through support of DISCLOSE - I know, I know, NRA didn't "support" it, they just "didn't discourage" it - NRA and Billy C are *so* wiley).

    So what do North Carolinians Do?

    1) Vote for Jeff Miller.
    2) Join GRNC
    3) Pray Sharon Angle defeats Harry "Sotomayor and Kagan, please) Reid.
    4) Pray very, very hard that there's house-cleaning over at NRA headquarters and they get back in the business of defending the Second Amendment and freedom in general (it may take overturning a few 3D chess tables).

  • Ken Soderstrom 3 years ago

    Yes, after floating the idea all summer, NRA cut their losses and withdrew their endorsement of Harry "Sotomayor and Kagan, please" Reid.

    The fact that endorsement was imminent prior to Reid's vote for Kagan makes it clear that NRA was a Reid supporter. This support for Reid is similar to current support of Heath "Shut 'em Up" Shuler, which make sense as both were involved in carving the DISCLOSE exception that NRA shares with ACLU and ACORN.

    The fact that NRA does not support Sharon Angle, Reid's competition in NV makes it clear that, despite not out-right endorsing Reid, that it still supports him.

    Is there a difference between supporting and endorsing? Not in the mind of a straight-forward, clear thinking American.

    Is there a difference between supporting supression of First- (and by extension, Second-) Amendment rights and not opposing it? Not to someone who isn't cynically wrapped-up in "politician-speak".

    The NRA has chosen to try to act like slimy politicians, selling-out principle for political favor. No-one favors the unprincipled for long, Chuck.

  • Jeff Rau 3 years ago

    Yes there is a difference between opposing a bill and being neutral. But take a good look at the DISCLOSE act and the neat exemption for NRA and I think any reasonable person would understand that a lot of gun owners are upset with the NRA for what at least appears as a sellout. Even something the NRA could take advantage of to become a monopoly.

  • Ken Soderstrom 3 years ago

    If NRA still supported the Second Amendment, freedom-loving Americans wouldn't be so puzzled by their behavior.

    1) Supporting Harry "Sotomayor and Kagan, please" Reid doesn't make long-term sense in-terms of maintaining the right to keep and bear arms.

    2) Not supporting Sharon Angle, Reid's challenger who is clearly right on every gun issue is a GLARING EXAMPLE of NRA SELLING-OUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT for imaginary political favor.

    3) NRA's support of First Amendment-killing DISCLOSE is another example of a mean-spirited attempt to MUZZLE other Second Amendment supporters. You can't deprive Americans of some of their rights and pretend to be a defender of others. IT'S JUST WRONG.

    4) NRA has lost touch with it's base. It's become a cynical political entity playing silly power games and misrepresenting it's members. The fact that NRA administration is PAYING THEMSELVES SIX- AND SEVEN-FIGURE SALARIES to play games with their member's interessts clearly shows how far they've sunk into pathetic, self-congratulatory arrogance.

    5) And now you're threatening and attacking REAL GRASSROOTS SECOND AMMENDMENT SUPPORTERS.

    6) SHAME ON NRA. SHAME ON SHULER. SHAME ON REID.

  • Rusty Shackleford 3 years ago

    Valone spewed:

    "Rusty: Looking through some of the back comments, I think you tagged the wrong guy to claim the NRA didn't support both Kaplan and Ward in '94;"

    Valone I have no idea what you are talking about I've never posted anything about either one.

    Perhaps it was somone else's comment you deleted little man.

    F Paul Valone
    Bad Memory-Sloppy Research-Flawed Ratings

  • sidwasout 3 years ago

    Paul and David, please explain to me why the old voter guide from NRA that I have, which was for the 1994 election, does not support what you both state. The guide clearly shows Ham Horton as endorsed, with an A, and Marvin Ward as endorsed, and with an A+. Kaplan is not endorsed, and has a C. Please, either explain yourselves, or admit your error.

  • Truth and Freedom 3 years ago
  • Ken Soderstrom 3 years ago

    Ah, here you are, Chuck. I thought you'd finally conceded to reason and left. Or were getting debriefed on Hugh "Castle Doctrine Killer" Holliman as you desperately need to (Why did NRA endorse him)?

    Oh, well...

    Taking a page out of John Kerry's book, NRA floated endorsement of Harry "Sotomayor and Kagan, please" Reid all summer before they retracted a few weeks ago.

    NRA still financially supports Reid against A-rated pro-gun challenger Sharon Angle. Why are you selling-out a pro-gun candidate for a liberty-suppressing, debt-addicted wonk? How is this supporting the Second Amendment?

    Endorse, support, financially-contribute...it's all the same, Chuck. NRA's pal Harry "Sotomayor and Kagan, please" Reid is benefitting all the same (but what do gun owners get [besides shafted])?

  • Ken Soderstrom 3 years ago

    Kyle graciously took care of over on the Holliman piece where you cross-posted this again. Thanks, Kyle. Hopefully Chuck will be satisfied, but I doubt it.

    So OK, you're not interested in the NRA trampling on the Second Amendment when its just a state issue - that's not your job description, I get it.

    So here's how supporting people's rights works: when a problem is brought to your attention and you aren't in a position to address it, you figure-out who is and contact them. I'll help you with the process this first time (but pay attention because I won't always be there to hold your hand).

    1) Which one of your colleagues at NRA is most-likely responsible for state-level races in North Carolina? Write the name down, and post it here. What is their email address - write it down (if you want to post that, please do). What is their extension -write it down and call? Ask that person why NRA is supporting Hugh "Hoplophobe" Holliman in North Carolina when he is responsible for killing our Castle Doctrine bill. Write down what you're told and post it here. Tell the person that North Carolinans are mad as hell about it, and they need to fix their mistake and pull the endorsement immediately.

    Now you know what to do, Chuck, it's time to get busy.

  • Truth and Freedom 3 years ago

    PLEASE READ (OR PRINT) QUICKLY BEFORE PAUL VALONE -- SUPPOSED SUPPORTER OF FREE SPEECH BUT REALLY JUST THE GRAND CENSOR -- DELETES THIS COMMENT.

    In your recent posting entitled "Why the NRA is bent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory," you falsely claimed that Congressman Heath Shuler does not "really have a voting record on a strictly gun-related bill" and Congressman Larry "Kissell has exactly zero gun votes under his belt."

    A quick visit online to the Library of Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov) proves otherwise and reveals that Congressman Heath Shuler:

    VOTED this year for the Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act (H.R. 5827 in the 111th Congress), which would ensure that a person who filed for bankruptcy would not lose their firearms, thereby maintaining the fundamental right to self-defense.

    VOTED last year for (the Senate amendment to H.R. 627) allowing carry license or permit holders to carry and transport firearms for self-defense in national parks and wildlife refuges.

    VOTED (for the Altmire amendment to H.R. 2016) in 2008 to protect hunting, fishing, trapping and recreational shooting on public land under the control of the Bureau of Land Management.

    Cosponsored the Second Amendment Enforcement Act (H.R. 5162 in the 111th Congress and H.R. 6691 in the 110th Congress) and District of Columbia Personal Protection Act (H.R. 1399 in the 110th Congress) that would repeal the D.C. gun ban/registration statute and restore the right of self-defense to law-abiding residents of our nation’s capital – also VOTED for the Childers amendment to H.R. 6842 in the 110th Congress to accomplish this.

    It also shows that Congressman Larry Kissell:

    VOTED this year for the Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act (H.R. 5827), which would ensure that a person who filed for bankruptcy would not lose their firearms, thereby maintaining the fundamental right to self-defense.

    VOTED last year for (the Senate amendment to H.R. 627) allowing carry license or permit holders to carry and transport firearms for self-defense in national parks and wildlife refuges.

    Now you call these issues "arcane votes deemed unfit for candidate evaluation not only by GRNC but also by GOA." WOW!!! That statement alone displays your sincerity on Second Amendment issues.

    You also claim to be too busy to respond to this simple matter of deception yet have time to write more diatribes, respond to comments, and delete the comments that you do not like. You apparently have plenty of time to delete dissenting comments that expose you are a reckless fraud and devout hypocrite.

    SO WHY IN THE WORLD SHOULD ANYONE BELIEVE YOU? You say here that Congressman Mike "McIntyre voted with gun owners only 73% of the time," but if you mislead readers about Shuler and Kissell, why not also on McIntyre. Who should believe the "information" that you provide about state races when you have deceived readers before? Talk about "defending the indefensible."

    As an apologist for Gun Owners of America, you blindly use their information regardless of whether their "gun" votes have anything to do with "guns." But because GOA is simply a partisan Republican group with a hidden agenda and that apparently fits in with your personal agenda, you will say whatever -- even if not true -- to make a point. That is neither honest nor principled. If I were that cowardly, I would want to be anonymous.

    How do you reconcile your personal obsession with the DISCLOSE Act (under the guise of free speech and First Amendment rights) with deleting most comments that challenge your veracity with proven facts (as above)?

    We have learned something about you and your motivation -- " that every time you log on here, I get paid." That explains why you will post unfounded and inaccurate statements simply to generate controversy and thus make money. Apparently you get paid even more for those comments that you delete. Perhaps it is not the profit motive at all, just your arrogant pride and being extremely thin-skinned. It takes a lot of work with you but sometimes the truth does slip out.

  • Ken Soderstrom 3 years ago

    Chuck, Chuck, Chuck…
    The only posts that seem to get deleted are personal attacks and silliness posted by you and yours from NRA HQ. Well, that and the copy-and-paste, pre-spun NRA talking points, that you’ve posted and cross-posted over-and-over-and-over.
    You’re abusing the process, Chuck. This behavior is at least impolite, if not down-right rude.
    We’ve been through the Shuler record and it clearly shows that he’s no friend of the First- or Second-Amendments. He had principal role in the DISCLOSE boondoggle that both violated the First- (and by extension Second- ) Amendment rights of all Americans, and was a disrespectful slap-in-the-face to our Nation’s Supreme Court. This alone makes it clear that no NC gun owner should support Heath “Shut ‘em Up” Shuler, and NRA has made yet another in a growing list of judgment errors in endorsing him.
    When you go and use the bully pulpit of the NRA to advise people on something as important as voting, you have a moral obligation to tell the truth. Chuck, I know you’ve been all politicized with your mucky-mucks in DC and those earning six- and seven-figures at the top of NRA. This schmoozing may have led to a decreased ability to recognize what truth really means in the real world that NC gun owners live in. In our world, Chuck, telling the truth means telling the *whole* truth, not just a part of it that you want people to hear and act on. You can talk-up some carefully culled positions that a lame politician has been associated with and try to make him look better. It’s lipstick on a pig to us Chuck, and if you look past the bright red lips that NRA made him put on for this midterm, it doesn’t change what Shuler really is.
    North Carolina gun owners: take back your First- and Second-Amendment rights and vote Jeff Miller for Congress. Send NRA’s lipstick-wearing pig, Heath “Shut ‘em Up” Shuler home where he’s less dangerous to freedom.

  • Truth and Freedom 3 years ago

    New questions for GOA apologists since Paul/Ken have evaded the others:

    Can you explain why GOA endorsed only 64 U.S. House candidates and did not endorse the pro-gun Republican candidate opposing the anti-gun Democrat in the competitive Senate races in Connecticut, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

    Also, there is a huge difference between endorsing candidates and supporting candidates. The NRA Political Victory Fund is reported to be spending $20 million in this election cycle (www.dailycaller.com/2010/11/01/thedc-exclusive-nra-spends-20-million-thi...). According to reports to the Federal Election Commission, GOA is spending very little to support their few endorsed candidates. Their largest PAC expenditure was for their accountant (over $15,000) and that amount is more than one-third of their total 2010 expenditures to date). As of October 13, GOA spent $3,559 for its endorsed Senate candidates and $2,877 for its endorsed House candidates. Over $20 million by the NRA and less than $10,000 by GOA – who is doing more to protect your Second Amendment rights in the 2010 election cycle?

  • George Orwell 3 years ago

    Let's try this again.

    "Truth and Freedom" wrote: "The NRA did not endorse Senator Harry Reid. That is a fact. Just because you say otherwise, does not make it so."

    No, you're right. The NRA did not *officially* or *directly* endorse Reid. Too much heat and public exposure from loyal Americans in the Tea Party, RedState.com, conservative talk show hosts, grassroots gun groups etc. But they're doing everything they can get away with to torpedo Angle, support Reid and protect him any way they can short of *officially* endorsing him. Reid betrayed gun owners and loyal Americans on every anti-gun anti-American nomination from Holder to Kagan, plus anti-gun anti-American ObamaCare, Veterans Disarmament and DISCLOSE. Consequently, as a reward for advancing whatever "single issue" it is that the NRA's staff really represents, the NRA gave Reid $5,000 this year, let him keep his phony B grade, campaigned for him in Nevada, misrepresented his voting record and undermined Sharron Angle as much as they could without being too obvious.

    So much for "Key Voting" Elena Kagan's nomination! If Reid and other anti-American anti-gunners win, you NRA superpatriots will have achieved your goal. Same same if we lose our one vote Supreme Court margin.

    "The NRA did NOT support the DISCLOSE Act. Not opposing legislation is not the same as supporting it."

    Again, 100% correct! Cutting a deal to betray one's countrymen, Constitution, and every organization other than the NRA and the anti-gun anti-American AARP, is not the same as *officially* endorsing the DISCLOSE Act itself. Very profound observation. Thank you. We would not have noticed that distinction.

    "As an apologist for Gun Owners of America, you blindly use their information regardless of whether their 'gun' votes have anything to do with 'guns.' But because GOA is simply a partisan Republican group with a hidden agenda and that apparently fits in with your personal agenda, you will say whatever -- even if not true -- to make a point. That is neither honest nor principled. If I were that cowardly, I would want to be anonymous."

    That's amusing. As far as I can see, YOU are anonymous. So does that mean YOU are "that cowardly"? You raised the issue? How about DISCLOSING who YOU are?

    I don't see how GOA is simply a partisan Republican group. But suppose I'm wrong. Then GOA is a LOYAL American partisan Republican group, and that's preferable to a DISLOYAL non-partisan group that protects anti-gun, anti-American politicians like Harry Reid, undermines the entire Constitution including the Second Amendment, betrays their heritage, maintains "access" to politicians on behalf of themselves and anti-gun, anti-American interests, and in return pays itself with million-dollar salaries.

    Single-issue group. Sure. What issue is that, anyway?

  • George Orwell 3 years ago

    P.S. Who do you think you're kidding here? Wayne LaPierre's pay is $1.28 million, about 20 times Larry Pratt's. GOA's entire budget is less than $1.9 million.

    NRA members: Want to puke your guts out? Check some of the NRA's line items on www2.guidestar.org. e.g.,
    $44 million in member communications.
    $21 million in printing & postage.
    Two paid solicitor fundraisers who keep 60-70% (over $5 million) of what they bring in...
    One of them gets paid an additional $10 million in compensation.
    Direct mail consultant makes $8 million a year.
    etc.

    I'm an NRA life member or I would quit. Your money goes 200 times farther at GOA. If nothing else, they thwart a lot of the NRA's evil schemes like DISCLOSE. But I've seen them get involved in critical races at just the right time to make a difference, as they did to help rid the world of Bob Bennett in Utah when LaPierre & Cox were trying to save him. Utah's Republican delegates later voted that GOA was the most effective group in that season.

    Exit polling shows Angle & "pro-gun" Reid in a dead heat. Good Job, NRA superpatriots!

  • Truth and Freedom 3 years ago

    NRA: Good Job helping Establishment "Republican" Incumbent Queen Lisa Murkowski beat the Tea Party's Joe Miller!

    Murkowski voted for extreme anti-gun Eric Holder for Attorney General, and for Judge Richard Hamilton who said the Founding Fathers intended judges to amend the Constitution through evolving case law. Etc.

    But we gave her an A rating and endorsed her in the primary, and we would not endorse Joe Miller in the general election on the supposed grounds that they both had "A" ratings.

    We're sticking with our single issue. Guess which issue that is! Hint: It's not gun rights, freedom, or truth!

    Just send us more money and you'll get more of the same great service! Guess what kind of service I'm thinking of!

  • Wayne LaPierre 3 years ago

    I love Cox.

  • Truth and Freedom 3 years ago

    Congressman Heath Shuler is the lead Democratic cosponsor of H.R. 822 (National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act).

    See: http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2011/02/hr-822-concealed-carry-reci...