TexasCHLforum.com

Right2Carry wrote:

Kraut wrote: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 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:
Carson is a vocal supporter of certain gun control measures. Well, he was until he received the feedback the truth would sink his chances at being nominated. Truth be known, he had little chance in the first place. I do not care if one bashes Paul or not. I still think it's a mistake for the NRA to shun him and appear to lump him in Christie.

I don't know why Carson was invited, maybe he asked? Pauls people give the impression that he wouldn't of gone anyway and was busy with other things. Most people aren't some gun control, but Paul is in bed with someone who is an active opponent of the NRA. Personally I don't think either of them matter much and Think the idea that not inviting an opponent is somehow insulting is stretching it anyway.

Show me where I said it was "insulting".

Everything else in your post is speculation. No more valid than my comments and opinion.

Apparently, Paul has a different opinion than what you speculate his people are conveying "impressions ".

Umm no Paul just said that it was petty not to be invited not that he even would of gone. Yes it's just my "speculation". So?

mojo84 wrote:
Carson is a vocal supporter of certain gun control measures. Well, he was until he received the feedback the truth would sink his chances at being nominated. Truth be known, he had little chance in the first place. I do not care if one bashes Paul or not. I still think it's a mistake for the NRA to shun him and appear to lump him in Christie.

I don't know why Carson was invited, maybe he asked? Pauls people give the impression that he wouldn't of gone anyway and was busy with other things. Most people aren't some gun control, but Paul is in bed with someone who is an active opponent of the NRA. Personally I don't think either of them matter much and Think the idea that not inviting an opponent is somehow insulting is stretching it anyway.

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote:They probably didn't invite him because as far as I know Paul has never been a NRA supporter. Why should they invite him?

Based on what info? Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it isn't so.

Is Ben Carson an NRA supporter? How about the membership status and support of all the other invitees?

Well he is a vocal supporter of Brown and the NAGR and has close financial ties to Brown. No one has shown closer ties to a group that is arguably anti NRA. I don't know if you mean the aggressive vibe I got of your reply but if so there is no need for it. I'm just making a comment not bashing Rand Paul

They probably didn't invite him because as far as I know Paul has never been a NRA supporter. Why should they invite him?