NRA's Trigger the Vote Campaign

[Kirk Freeman]

NRA launches "Trigger the Vote Campaign".

Just not so sure how I feel about this. It is like they are trying too hard to be funny? Is it the same ad agency that did those horrific Chuck Norris ads?

What do you think?

Landing | Trigger The Vote | Register Today!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Where's Gunny's Glock?

I think one of the problems we have now is there are way too many people that don't care enough to learn about the issues or knowing how our government was designed to work vote anyway. There's no guarantee if we get them to register to vote, they'll support the few constitutionally minded candidates we have.

Maybe we should leave the apothetic, potentially ignorant masses be.

 

[SideArmed]

Sounds equivalent to the "Vote Or Die" campain from the last election that ol' Puffy whats-his-nuts was spearheading. To me it is encouraging uneducated people to run to the polls and make an uninformed decision about who should be running the country. Thats what contributed to this mess IMO.

 

[rambone]

I wonder who the NRA expects us to vote for.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Whoever you want - that isn't Obama.

 

[Sylvain]

I think any campaign that is encouraging people to vote is a good thing, but im not sure it will have much effect on non-registered people anyway.
If they cared about it they would be registered to vote already.
It's more about education in my opinion.
I learned in school that voting is not only a right it's also a duty.In some countries you are actually fined for not voting as it's required by law like in Brazil and Belgium.
Even if I cant registered to vote in the US I still follow the presidential campaign because it's important.
People who dont vote for some reasons should also think about all the people who dont have the right to vote.
Im not talking about myself, I dont vote in the US but I do vote in my country.
Im talking about all those countries where the citizens dont have the right to vote at all or where the elections are just faked (not that there is no fraud possible in the US).
I have seen people going to vote in Afghanistan even though they knew that they could die because the voting place could be targeted by Talibans who were against the vote.
Those people went to vote even though that could cost them their lifes.
Some of them had to walk for hours to vote.
I dont think that some Americans realize how important that is to have the right to vote.
That's a luxury that many people in the world dont have and wish they had, just like access to water.

 

[SideArmed]

I think any campaign that is encouraging people to vote is a good thing, but im not sure it will have much effect on non-registered people anyway.

A campaign to encourage people to get out and educate themselves before they vote, is a good thing. But to promote peole to blindly go out and vote for the candiate that you are endorsing is a big problem, IMO.

I am all for encouraging people to get out and exercise their voice through the vote, but they need to know who/what they are voting on. Not just blindly casting a ballot because Mr(or Mrs.)-I'm-a-celebrity is telling them who to vote for.

 

[Sylvain]

A campaign to encourage people to get out and educate themselves before they vote, is a good thing. But to promote peole to blindly go out and vote for the candiate that you are endorsing is a big problem, IMO.

I am all for encouraging people to get out and exercise their voice through the vote, but they need to know who/what they are voting on. Not just blindly casting a ballot because Mr(or Mrs.)-I'm-a-celebrity is telling them who to vote for.

I agree.
That's one of the reasons why I follow the political life in the US even though I cant vote now.
If I can vote in a few years I will already know about the candidates and what they have done in the past.
Same way I got interested by politics when I was maybe 14 or 15 years old.I didn't wait to be 18 to learn about important issues.

 

[HICKMAN]

man, I was just gonna start a thread.

First Uncle Ted, then Chuck, now R Lee Ermey

I'll take these corney ones over the liberal "rockthevote" any day of the week

 

[rambone]

If Romney gets the nomination, like everyone seems to presume, I wonder who they'll be endorsing.

Romney has his name on more anti-gun legislation than Barack Obama.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

No endorsement likely.

Just endorse in House and Senate races.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

No endorsement likely.

Just endorse in House and Senate races.

If Romney gets the nomination, like everyone seems to presume, I wonder who they'll be endorsing.

Romney has his name on more anti-gun legislation than Barack Obama.

So who do you vote for? The guy who you know believes the constitution is wrong because its a bill of negative liberties? That it doesnt say what the government must do for you? Or the guy that now claims to be a conservative candidate despite a record of liberal positions? Or some third party guy (or sit home), that could insure obama's reelection?

 

[level.eleven]

No endorsement likely.

Just endorse in House and Senate races.

My, that is certainly convenient.

 

[rambone]

So who do you vote for? The guy who you know believes the constitution is wrong because its a bill of negative liberties? That it doesnt say what the government must do for you? Or the guy that now claims to be a conservative candidate despite a record of liberal positions? Or some third party guy (or sit home), that could insure obama's reelection?

I think I'm raising a good question.

The NRA purportedly believes in one thing alone: Gun Rights.

This was their justification for endorsing collectivist a**-wipe Harry Reid in 2010.


If 2012 indeed brings us Romney vs. Obama, the NRA can either:

• endorse no one (while still encouraging everyone to vote?? huh?)
• endorse one gun grabber (R) over the other (D)
• endorse a 3rd party (L) and hold true to their single issue advocacy

I would prefer if they'd endorse the Libertarian candidate and remain consistent with their mission statement. Have some courage to go against the anti-gun establishment that infests both R & D parties.

If they endorsed nobody, I could respect them if they would come out with it and tell their members plainly: Both these cretins hate the RKBA.

 

[level.eleven]

I think I'm raising a good question.

The NRA purportedly believes in one thing alone: Gun Rights.

This was their justification for endorsing collectivist a**-wipe Harry Reid in 2010.


If 2012 indeed brings us Romney vs. Obama, the NRA can either:

• endorse no one (while still encouraging everyone to vote?? huh?)
• endorse one gun grabber (R) over the other (D)
• endorse a 3rd party (L) and hold true to their single issue advocacy

I would prefer if they'd endorse the Libertarian candidate and remain consistent with their mission statement. Have some courage to go against the anti-gun establishment that infests both R & D parties.

If they endorsed nobody, I could respect them if they would come out with it and tell their members plainly: Both these cretins hate the RKBA.

Even more to the point, wouldn't a single issue endorsement favor Obama over Romney? RKBA issues have been expanded under Obama. He signed National Park carry. Romney signed weapons bans.

 

[hornadylnl]

I think I'm raising a good question.

The NRA purportedly believes in one thing alone: Gun Rights.

This was their justification for endorsing collectivist a**-wipe Harry Reid in 2010.


If 2012 indeed brings us Romney vs. Obama, the NRA can either:

• endorse no one (while still encouraging everyone to vote?? huh?)
• endorse one gun grabber (R) over the other (D)
• endorse a 3rd party (L) and hold true to their single issue advocacy

I would prefer if they'd endorse the Libertarian candidate and remain consistent with their mission statement. Have some courage to go against the anti-gun establishment that infests both R & D parties.

If they endorsed nobody, I could respect them if they would come out with it and tell their members plainly: Both these cretins hate the RKBA.

If the NRA endorsed a libertarian, how many INGO members alone would cancel their memberships?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think I'm raising a good question.

The NRA purportedly believes in one thing alone: Gun Rights.

This was their justification for endorsing collectivist a**-wipe Harry Reid in 2010.


If 2012 indeed brings us Romney vs. Obama, the NRA can either:

• endorse no one (while still encouraging everyone to vote?? huh?)
• endorse one gun grabber (R) over the other (D)
• endorse a 3rd party (L) and hold true to their single issue advocacy

I would prefer if they'd endorse the Libertarian candidate and remain consistent with their mission statement. Have some courage to go against the anti-gun establishment that infests both R & D parties.

If they endorsed nobody, I could respect them if they would come out with it and tell their members plainly: Both these cretins hate the RKBA.

OR

They could make their selection based on the certainty That one of two men will be elected president in November. It is going to be either BHO or (for the sake of this discussion) Romney. Nobody else stands a chance. No libertarian, no greenie, no constitutional, no communist--nobody. It's going to be one of those two.

So do they select the one we know the types of justices he'll nominate to the bench? The guy that will fly under the radar to implement his Marxist agenda?

Or do they endorse a guy that has very liberal positions in his past but now espouses conservative, pro-constitutional positions? Do we believe, like me for example, that his views have evolved over the years and now firmly embraces "original intent" of the constitution?

Personally, unless Romney turns out to be a Satan worshipping, child molesting, card-carrying communist, dog-killing bacon-hater, im taking my chances and voting for him because firing BHO is job #1 this year to me.

 

[rambone]

Even more to the point, wouldn't a single issue endorsement favor Obama over Romney? RKBA issues have been expanded under Obama. He signed National Park carry. Romney signed weapons bans.

Its certainly feasible, looking at Romney's record.

If the NRA endorsed a libertarian, how many INGO members alone would cancel their memberships?

If they remained members after the endorsement of Senate leader Harry Reid (and other questionable characters), they would be fools to bemoan the endorsement of a perfectly pro-gun Libertarian.

 

[hornadylnl]

Its certainly feasible, looking at Romney's record.


If they remained members after the endorsement of Senate leader Harry Reid (and other questionable characters), they would be fools to bemoan the endorsement of a perfectly pro-gun Libertarian.

You forget that these people hate libertarians worse than liberals.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If the NRA endorsed a libertarian, how many INGO members alone would cancel their memberships?

Virtually zero, I'd bet.