TexasCHLforum.com

bdickens wrote:People can really foul things up when they are part of an organization and go and do something on their own without guidance.

Charles,

I am not trying to initiate an attack on the organization that I am a member of. I am stating that I find the statement is too neutral or ambiguous to be of any real value.

I realize that I may not be the brightest kid on the block, but if I see the statement as not leaning one way or another, I suspect that a good part of the general population might also come to the same conclusion.

I am pro-NRA, and feel like "we" should come down a little more forcefully and succinctly on the matter.

I presumed that it had nothing to do with it. But at face-value it can be easily misconstrued. I was disappointed with the statement in general.

Perhaps I should have re-phrased it as,

"could seem to support".

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

cling wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Here is a clarification on the NRA's position on open carry. This is the official position of the NRA and it is presented to avoid any confusion that may have recently arisen.

Chas.

"We support the right of law-abiding persons to carry a firearm for all lawful purposes in the manner of their choosing, consistent with existing laws." - NRA

Does that include unconstitutional laws?

Which laws are you referencing?

Chas.

As an NRA member I find the statement above quite disturbing. The NRA quote, if taken at face-value, would seem to support pre-Heller gun laws in Washington DC. It is really no statement at all.