This November I will be voting the Nevada's U.S. Senate seat currently held by Harry Reid. I am sure I will be blasted by some of you, but is loosing Reid such a good idea for second amendment fans?
In his last election here, he won by only several hundred votes. Even with Nevada's low population, it was a very narrow victory.
On most issues, I couldn't disagree more with him. He is pro-gun however. In this state, being anti-gun is political suicide. Weather he has this stand due to political expedience or he really is sincerely on our side really doesn't matter. He has not done anything to hurt our gun rights.
Should I vote for him?
The current Presidential administration has been relatively silent on gun issues. As left-wing as he is, and looking at his Illinois/Chicago anti-gun record, I keep wondering why there hasn't been a big gun grab. President Clinton was much more moderate and yet he passed some goofy gun laws. So, what has kept Obama from gutting our second amendment rights? I have a theory. I have no proof of this, call it a gut feeling if you will.
If the President were to try restrict gun rights, it would put senator Reid in a bind. If he supported the President, Nevada would boot him out of office in a heart beat. He could oppose the President, that would put him at odds with the democratic party leaders. So I wonder, if Reid and Obama have some sort of back-door deal concerning guns. The President stays low-keyed on the issue, Reid makes sure the Senate passes all his bills, and old Harry keeps his job in Nevada.
Here is a concern. Lets say Senator Reid is defeated in November, but the Democrats keep control of the Senate. A new Senate leader would replace Reid. What if this leader wasn't so concerned with the second amendment? Or worse, they were anti-gun. Would this unleash Obama's anti-gun agenda?
As far as gun owners go, is Reid the worse we could do?
In his last election here, he won by only several hundred votes. Even with Nevada's low population, it was a very narrow victory.
On most issues, I couldn't disagree more with him. He is pro-gun however. In this state, being anti-gun is political suicide. Weather he has this stand due to political expedience or he really is sincerely on our side really doesn't matter. He has not done anything to hurt our gun rights.
Should I vote for him?
The current Presidential administration has been relatively silent on gun issues. As left-wing as he is, and looking at his Illinois/Chicago anti-gun record, I keep wondering why there hasn't been a big gun grab. President Clinton was much more moderate and yet he passed some goofy gun laws. So, what has kept Obama from gutting our second amendment rights? I have a theory. I have no proof of this, call it a gut feeling if you will.
If the President were to try restrict gun rights, it would put senator Reid in a bind. If he supported the President, Nevada would boot him out of office in a heart beat. He could oppose the President, that would put him at odds with the democratic party leaders. So I wonder, if Reid and Obama have some sort of back-door deal concerning guns. The President stays low-keyed on the issue, Reid makes sure the Senate passes all his bills, and old Harry keeps his job in Nevada.
Here is a concern. Lets say Senator Reid is defeated in November, but the Democrats keep control of the Senate. A new Senate leader would replace Reid. What if this leader wasn't so concerned with the second amendment? Or worse, they were anti-gun. Would this unleash Obama's anti-gun agenda?
As far as gun owners go, is Reid the worse we could do?