search
top

NRA Worried Members Aren’t Lining Up Behind Trump?

First NRA ad of the season:

34 Responses to “NRA Worried Members Aren’t Lining Up Behind Trump?”

  1. Ian Argent says:

    They ought to be worried.

  2. RAH says:

    Gun owners should be be worried also.

  3. Timothy Covington says:

    I was very disappointed when the NRA endorsed Trump. He has a long history of being anti-gun. They would have been better served by making no endorsement for President.

  4. HappyWarrior6 says:

    As far as I’m concerned, Trump has already shown himself to bend with the likes of Pat Toomey. At this point I am labeling him unreliable on the gun issue. He has a massive chasm to make up before November there. The fact is as of now he has no problem ushering in terror watch list / UBC legislation so long as it prevents “terrorists” from obtaining weapons. Of course, the definition of terrorists changes with the times, too. And whatever came of his meeting with the NRA?

  5. Nick L. EMT-P NYC says:

    If there was just a wee-bit more lens flare and tilt-shift focus in this video, then I would let Trump and the NRA wrap me up in a diaper and bottle feed me that freshly pumped, wholesome social conservative breast milk.

    No mention of guns rights. Thanks.

    Hey NRA, take a clue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32AeDLzHmTw

    Psst. The guy in the Mohawk is you, NRA.

  6. Wiregrass says:

    With rumors being that he will tap Christie for running mate, what else should they expect? They should never have endorsed Trump in May, it should have been something like”probational approval”. Just so it would be clear where he stands.Unless he gets on track real soon, I’m writing in Pedro.

    • brewmasterbob says:

      The Giant Meteor of Death seems to have more support as a presidential candidate than most of the third parties actually running.

    • When the media sources a story that losers Chris Christie or Newt Gingrich are on the VP list you should be a bit skeptical.

      Did the Trump campaign say so? Nope.

  7. JeremyS says:

    I was going to vote for Trump for SCOTUS reasons until he came out with support for banning guns for those on a secret gov watch list. Maybe I’ll write in someone. The Libertarian candidates don’t even look qualified for a protest vote when it comes to gun rights. — NRA Life Member

  8. Jeremiah Weed says:

    I pay the NRA to lobby politicians, not to propagandize me on behalf of politicians.

  9. Beatbox says:

    So we can stop the myth that they are a single issue organization?

  10. JeffinCA says:

    That was not a good ad.

  11. BC says:

    I don’t need reminders from the NRA about how horrible Hillary Clinton is likely to be as president, and I’m uninterested in lectures about how important it is to defeat her from people who are so unserious about it that they’re supporting Donald Trump.

  12. Brad says:

    Considering the enormous stakes of this election, and how Hillary is the first Presidential nominee to explicitly campaign against the NRA and against 2nd Amendment rights, I’m disappointed at how shortsighted some people are being.

    Is the anti-gun Ruling Class News Media right after all? Is this the “tipping point” on gun-control? An election which sends us towards the confiscation policies of Australia?

    Of course Trump is untrustworthy, of course Trump will probably pull a GHW Bush on us if elected. But you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had. At least Trump is campaigning using the most pro-gun rhetoric and pro-gun platform of any nominee ever.

    I trusted President Bush on guns because of his record as Texas governor, and I was correct in trusting him. But even he gave lip service during his 2000 campaign of supporting renewal of the Fed AW ban.

    If you held your nose and voted for Romney, a man with a record of anti-gun legislation, you can hold your nose for Trump too. That’s what I did, and what I’m going to do.

    • ad-lib says:

      …what if i didn’t hold my nose and vote Romney?

    • Roberta X says:

      Didn’t vote for Romney, won’t vote for Trump. McCain was the last time I held my nose to vote. The LP gets my vote and if you don’t like it, fine, vote right back at me.

    • Alpheus says:

      I held my nose and voted for McCain, but I came out of that election feeling like I needed to take a shower afterward. I decided then that a candidate needs to earn my vote, and McCain didn’t earn my vote.

      I held my nose and voted for Romney, but only because he’s a nice man. Perhaps too nice, because if he didn’t back off of Benghazi in the second debate, we *might* be discussing how awful Romney’s reelection campaign is going.

      I cannot hold my nose and vote for Trunk, though. He’s neither a nice man, nor is he in any easy conservative. (Please, for the love of all that is holy, can’t we have a candidate that is at least a little bit fiscally conservative?) His campaign is all over the map, with the disturbing trend of falling back on liberal positions when his conservative ones are challenged. Ie no evidence that his reign is going to be any different than Hilary’s.

      Incidentally, on gun rights, Romney St least made consistent noises on the campaign trail that he was for them; any questions about that were about how sincere he was, and how much of a backbone he’d have if push came to shove. Trump hasn’t even given us that much!

  13. Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

    They should be worried. Just look at the comments here. Surprised FiftyCalTX isn’t here with his Hiltery screaming.

    The problem with Trump is that if he changes his mind, as he often does, he’ll push for hard. And the GOP will go along. Oh UBCs are necessary now? Done. With Clinton, the GOP will at least fight back on guns.

  14. Whetherman says:

    Now I know I’m getting old. I can remember when the NRA at least made a pretense at being a gun rights organization!

    Or am I ignoring that there were guns at Benghazi? Is that the NRA connection?

    Can somebody diagram all this for me?

  15. Joe_in_Pitt says:

    So the NRA fires it’s first salvo against Hillary using…an ad on Benghazi?

    The production value may be night and day compared to their previous stuff, but I don’t think screaming BENGHAZI! makes a good first impression for a group claiming to focus on gun rights.

    And don’t get me started on Trump. He can talk about my right to carry all he wants, but what does it matter when he has no problem eviscerating the rest of the bill of rights? There’s still time to win hearts and minds but right now he’s coming across as a statist of a different flavor.

    • Whetherman says:

      I’m thinking we may need another 1977-Cincinnati-style revolt just to get the NRA back on message. But is such a thing possible anymore? And, is it even worth it?

      • Joe_in_Pitt says:

        We’re in the minority buddy. Unfortunately too much of the NRA’s base eats up the broad-spectrum conservative stuff.

        I still believe the NRA is our largest ally leading the fight, and will from time to time throw a few bucks their way, but they are now well down this rabbit hole of shoveling the red meat to social conservatives in this country. At least in 2012 they backed off on a real endorsement and were more focused on showing how anti-gun Obama was, knowing they had a week 2A candidate on the R side.

        Now they’ve fully endorsed Trump before the convention, and knowing they don’t have much to tout for how strong he is on gun rights, have to go after Hillary for every issue under the sun. Fortunately for them, libertarian-minded folks like myself who are grumbling about it make up a small portion of the membership.

  16. Alpheus says:

    I was deeply disappointed when I saw that ad. I’m really sick and tired of being told that the reason we need to vote for Trump is that he’s not Hillary.

    The problem is that politicians need to earn my vote, and because of what Trump has done and said in this campaign, he’s already lost mine. I simply cannot trust this man.

    It goes beyond that. I’m seeing hints that Trump doesn’t want to be President. Indeed, Sarah Hoyt, on her blog, explained how she’s worked for Get Out The Vote campaigns for years, the latest being with Romney. She explained that she should be getting emails about volunteer work for this campaign, but she hadn’t received a single email this year…

    C’mon, if you want to be President, show us that you want to win!

    (About Benghazi, yes, I’m angry about it, but the time to push really hard on it was in the second Presidential Debate in the last election. Romney dropped the ball. I don’t know if he’d have been President if he’d had done that, but I know I was severely disappointed that he didn’t push the issue further then!)

  17. Sprocket says:

    Due to the chronic incompetence of the GOP, Trump is the only game in town. This election isn’t about the next four years. This election is about the composition of the supreme court for the next several decades.

    There is no alternative. There is not a viable third party candidate. The GOP hasn’t had a response to Trump, beyond telling it’s base to shut up, take what it’s given and like it. So, it’s going to be Trump and Hillary.

    I don’t care if Trump Smokes crack with tranny hookers in the oval office and pisses in the corner. Allowing Hillary to decide the composition of the supreme court will be a disaster.

    • Brad says:

      It’s almost funny. On one hand we have some people complaining that the NRA isn’t running a pure enough pro-gun campaign, supposedly becoming a tool of conservatives, and on the other hand we have people complaining that Trump is a phony conservative, or not reliably pro-gun.

      I hope those people who would rather be pure than win, are satisfied when Hillary packs the Supreme Court, and the Press crows what a paper tiger the NRA is, that it couldn’t turn out enough pro-gun voters even when faced with the threat of the most anti-gun President ever to be elected.

      • Joe_in_Pitt says:

        Nobody is talking about voting for Hillary and many of us aren’t discussing not voting for Trump. I also think it’s safe to say all of us here understand the SCOTUS ramifications with this election.

        But compared to many PACs, the NRA-PVF doesn’t spend a ton of money. So why use what funds it does have going after Hillary for Benghazi? What’s next, an NRA ad about her emails?

        The NRA has plenty of material to work with to highlight Hillary’s fanatical anti-gun devotion. Leave the other scandals to the dozens of other PACs that will surely use them against her. All the NRA is doing is diluting the message they should be getting out there.

  18. Jack says:

    Don’t look at me. I voted for Kodos.

top