TexasCHLforum.com

Doug.38PR wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I don't know the reasons but I don't see him commenting on it as being "petty". The NRA and it's support is extremely valuable and the stakes in a presidential election are huge.

I also hope this isn't an indication of a big rift between the two.

His word
http://tinyurl.com/ogzpnjh" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Again, my point was missed. A poster said it was " petty" of Rand Paul to call out the NRA publicly. I was saying I didn't agree with that. It helps to read comments in context.

How can it not be petty? Do you think he was entitled to an invitation?

Being disappointed about not being invited is one thing. Publicly calling out the one that did not invite you is petty... period.

Given that every other pro second amendment candidate was invited, I'd say YES he was entitled. It's a political forum for candidates that support a particular issue in a public campaign. To single Paul out and not include him is...frankly petty isn't the word I'd use, I'd call it almost insulting. In excluding Paul, the NRA is giving the impression of acting like a bunch of grumpy old Republican establishment men that don't like the constitutional conservatism that Paul's support represents (whether they are real conservatives or libertarians or just young people who are conservative and appreciate the sincerity that accompanies a Paul campaign (honestly I don't like Rand as much as his father. His father is a little more solid and delivers his message better)

Read my prior posts and you'll see why he was not invited. He aligned himself with a prolific liar who repeatedly makes false allegations against the NRA so he can ask gullible people for donations. When one lays down with dogs, one gets up with fleas.

Chas.

OldCannon wrote:Personally, I don't like the NAGR either.

That being said, I'm also profoundly disappointed that RP wasn't offered to speak at the NRAAM. He wanted to, the NRA didn't want him, and it wasn't because of his position on the second amendment. They sent a clear signal that they disapproved of his association with the NAGR. End of story.

Frankly, I don't think his appearance at the NRAAM will matter much in the long run. It might even benefit him with swing voter appeal. I guess we'll know by mid-July next year.

Although I agree that him not appearing won't make a difference, Rand Paul apparently does or he wouldnt have whined publicaly? It wont make a difference because he can't get the nomination, much less win the election.

When he partnered with NAGR, he showed his true colors and I couldn't care less about his Second Amendment opinions. Anyone who makes an ally of a known liar is unfit to be President. He knew what ne was doing and he doesnt like the NRA because we didn't endorse his father. When you lay with dogs you get up with fleas and no one wants fleas in their house, especially the White House.

Cha

Kraut wrote:Inviting Ben Carson, a known gun control advocate, to speak gives credence to NAGR's criticism of the NRA.

Have you not read that several Second Amendment organizations have blasted NAGR for lying about other organizations, and then asking for a donation? If you have, then you know your post was false. If you haven't heard about NAGR's reputation among all Second Amendment organizations, then you should do some research before taking its side against anyone or anything.

Chas.

I am not involved in the decision as to who is invited to speak at NRA events. These are my comments only.

Dudley Moore and his NAGR mailing list have attacked and lied about the NRA from its inception. It lies about pro-gun elected officials in Congress and in state legislatures, including Texas. Dudley and NAGR have been denounced by other Second Amendment organizations. It has been reported that Rand Paul and Moore/NAGR have exchanged email lists and that NAGR supports Paul.

I wouldn't have Ran Paul to my house for lunch and I certainly would give him and his NRGR cohorts a speaking platform at the NRA convention. We have enough lies coming the Obama and his supporters, we don't need a Republican candidate that supports, received support from, and trades email lists with a proven liar.

The fact that Paul calls himself a "major candidate" and that not having him at the premier Second Amendment gathering hurts the NRA in the public eye shows me he's delusional.

Chas.