TexasCHLforum.com

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.

I am not at this time a Rand Paul supporter. However, I feel he should have been invited and it is justifiable for him to feel slighted in not being invited. Maybe Charles, as a NRA Board member, can share some insight on this matter.

OldGrumpy wrote:I am not at this time a Rand Paul supporter. However, I feel he should have been invited and it is justifiable for him to feel slighted in not being invited. Maybe Charles, as a NRA Board member, can share some insight on this matter.

on both points.

I want to know the important stuff about R.P.

Such as: Is that really HIS hair or a small mammal on top of his noggin?

Or, is his hair actually straight, but he has a really curly head?

These are the questions I want answered by Mr. Paul.

This doesn't surprise me in the least. I'm an NRA life member, but the NRA is in bed with the national GOP. You can make the argument that a rapport is necessary for them to be heard and supported on 2nd Amendment issues, but I think it's quite likely that high placed national GOP representatives "discouraged" the NRA from a Rand appearance.

I'm not a Rand Paul supporter but it should be obvious at this point that the GOP is not going to let ANY candidate that threatens the GOP establishment get the party presidential nomination. Clearly, the ones invited are either not seen as a threat to the GOP establishment because they either have zero chance of gaining enough popular support to make them dangerous, or are onboard with them. Some believe that Paul is just controlled opposition, but even if it that were the case, they'd still have to perform the theatrics.

Neither Cruz nor Paul has any chance of winning the GOP nomination in 2016 no matter what the voters want. 90% of the entire country could want one or the other across party lines and the GOP would still torpedo their candidacies. If necessary, the GOP will throw any election that threatens the power of those who are part of the party establishment. The establishment GOP would rather be a minority party and keep the reigns of power for themselves than win elections that result in the power within the party changing hands.

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

EEllis wrote:

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

An "aggressive vibe"?

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.

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.

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 ".

Does anyone know whether the invities are NRA members? Is Rand an NRA member? I would think the NRA would only invite those who are NRA members but I could be totally wrong on this.

The fact that Donald Trump was invited rather than Rand Paul is a little mind boggling. Rand does have an A rating with the NRA after all.

At the end of the day could this be the media making something out of nothing? Do we know if he was expecting to go?

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?

The only thing petty I see, is that the NRA did not invite one of the stronger vocal supporters of Second Amendment Rights.

All of the major contenders for the Republican nomination I see....but not him....Why?

I've not read anything in this thread to sway me otherwise. Other than the NRA is sending a message to him.

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.

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.