NRA excludes Rand Paul at national convention

[rtschl]

Thanks Charles. It would be one thing if Rand Paul was soliciting support from all corners and I wouldn't fault him for that. But if he is in bed with NAGR, exchanging email lists, etc. then I completely understand why the NRA would not have him as a speaker this year. You're known by the company you keep and the NRA isn't under obligation to provide a back door to the NAGR at their convention.

Edited to fix bold mistake.

[joe817]

I obviously spoke out of ignorance, not knowing "the rest of the story." Thanks Charles for the clarification, and I retract my previous false assumptions, and statements.

[Pawpaw]

Thanks for the feedback Charles. When doing some research on the background of Rand Paul and the NRA I came across this.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -rand.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not taking sides in this. I just hope infighting within the republican party doesn't cause us to end up with another Clinton as president.

That article reads like nothing more than a lie-filled hit piece.

For instance:

In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass-murder in 2012, the GOA said its rival was hiding from the media: “Whenever there’s a tragedy, they go into possum mode,” chief counsel Mike Hammond told The Huffington Post. “They think that if they don’t say anything that it will go away.”

I have pretty clear memories of that time. The NRA was on the news almost every night, fighting the media lies. Remember who came up with the School Marshal idea and was universally made fun of for it?

[Right2Carry]

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

I haven't heard anything from Carsons that puts him in as a gun control advocate. If you are going to make an accusation please provide proof.

[EEllis]

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

I haven't heard anything from Carsons that puts him in as a gun control advocate. If you are going to make an accusation please provide proof.

Carson has made statements that would lead someone to believe he is for some firearm restrictions. Mind you if you don't think felons should be allowed to have guns or that you shouldn't be able to buy machine guns out of a catalog like you used to be able to do then you to are a gun control advocate. Without more info or context that term is pointless.

Also the way he has stated some things makes me think he isn't particularly knowledgeable about guns. So he may well have stated an opinion that with a bit more info would change. Not everyone is a gun person.

[mojo84]

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

I haven't heard anything from Carsons that puts him in as a gun control advocate. If you are going to make an accusation please provide proof.

See the 5th post in this topic. From the horse's mouth. He has since been working hard to backtrack and "clarify" his comments.

http://bearingarms.com/gentle-ben-carso ... f-defense/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://gunssavelives.net/gun-politics/b ... f-firearm/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... m-geraghty" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[Right2Carry]

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

I haven't heard anything from Carsons that puts him in as a gun control advocate. If you are going to make an accusation please provide proof.

See the 5th post in this topic. From the horse's mouth. He has since been working hard to backtrack and "clarify" his comments.

http://bearingarms.com/gentle-ben-carso ... f-defense/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://gunssavelives.net/gun-politics/b ... f-firearm/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... m-geraghty" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have heard the same think on this forum about OC in urban environments. Are those people gun control advocates as well?

[VMI77]

Thought I was somewhat up on current events but I've never heard of the NAGR before and had to look it up. I have to say, the website looks a little cheesy. Checked a couple of other hits and it seems they don't have a reputation for honesty and integrity on some of the gun blogs.

[OldCannon]

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.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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

[OldGrumpy]

The NRA established "turf" in this little spat. My question is what happens to the NRA in the unlikely event Rand Paul wins the nomination ? There would have been no negative impact for their inviting him. However, time will tell if there are consequences for not inviting him. By the way, I am not a RP supporter but could be persuaded. Just feel we need all the friends we can get in the halls of DC.

[Doug.38PR]

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)

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[Oldgringo]

{snip}

I am not taking sides in this. I just hope infighting within the republican party doesn't cause us to end up with another Clinton as president.

There it is, the crux of the matter!