NRA & Ron Paul - What's the Deal?

When deciding where to apply our efforts in various races nationwide, we consider whether the candidate has a reasonable chance of winning. Some pro-Second Amendment candidates, unfortunately are so handicapped by local political conditions, lack of funds, lack of staff or volunteer support, and other difficulties that even a massive NRA effort could not put them over the top and would simple be a waste of NRA members’ time and money. On the other hand, some pro-Second Amendment candidates may be in such a strong position politically that little or no expenditure of resources is necessary to ensure their reelection, and our efforts can go to a more critical race elsewhere.

I don't remember anyone asking nra to expend money for Dr. Paul. This is where nra plays games to avoid giving ANY publicity to arguably the most pro 2nd amendment candidate to ever run. Nra is distorting what we are expecting from them. No one is demanding that nra mortgage it's headquarters, take out loans, and throw every penny at the Paul campaign in the expectation that he could win. What most of us want is for nra to simply have the courage to publicly state the obvious: that Dr. Paul is at least ONE OF the best candidates on the second amendment and deserves the consideration of nra members. As long as nra refuses to make that simple and true statement, it's going to appear that they are ignoring Ron Paul (which I personally believe they are). In that nra statement I quoted, nra makes a veiled judgment on the "reasonable chance of winning" (or lack thereof) of the Paul campaign, which may or may not be true but that is NOT the point because nra mixes that issue with the issue of "expending nra members' money" which effectively no one is asking nra to do at this point.

Most of us are simply expecting nra to make few fair minded statements of acknowledgment of the Paul campaign to their members. That's it. Would it KILL the nra to give a "temporary primary endorsement" of all the truly pro 2nd amendment candidates (Paul, Huckabee, Richardson, Thompson)?
 
What part of this do you not understand?

Congressman Ron Paul was invited to the National Rifle Association’s Celebration of American Values conference, but the NRA did not receive a response from him. As a result, there is no mention of your candidate in the article.

Forget it. Don't answer that. Yes, you are right, there is a vast NRA conspiracy against Ron Paul, because the NRA didn't physically find Ron Paul, tie him up, force him to accompany them to NRA headquarters, force him to provide a statement in response to the NRA's invitation, and then return him to whereever it was that he was kidnapped from in the first place. And if the the NRA doesn't give a "temporary primary endorsement" (which the NRA has never done before for any candidate), well, that's part of the conspiracy against Ron Paul, too.

Oh, the conspiracy! Oh, the humanity! Oh, the controversy! :rolleyes:

See, this is the kind of stuff that makes the GOA and some Ron Paul supporters look downright silly, and more than a little paranoid.
 
Not sure what's up with all the "self-proclaimed disciple" stuff or the sudden adoration of the NRA, but I would just like to point this out:
There have been many examples this cycle as well as previous ones wherein candidates "never responded" to invitations that were "never sent" and the campaigns "never got a response" to their attempts to garner one.
This isn't new.
Now having said that, I will state plainly that I'm not a fan of so-called advocacy groups that are willing compromise away the very precepts they claim to protect in the name of political expediency.
I'm not fond of the NRA. I'm jealously protective of the GOA. Take that for what you will.
Maybe they don't get the results that the NRA gets, but I don't really approve of the NRA's results either.
To each his own, and if this is off-topic please delete.
 
Fremmer you seem to have only one note that you like to play: when anyone says just about anything you disagree with, you twist their words in an attempt to smear them with the "conspiracy" label. How bout you give that a rest already. Can you allow other people their opinions without mocking them? It's clear that you're not interested in any debate or discussion because all you do is mock other people's viewpoints. Simply voicing the opinion that nra is ignoring Ron Paul gets you to show up and somehow twist that opinion into the dreaded "conspiracy" label. For some reason you are either quite threatened by any discussion that you view to even REMOTELY be "conspiratorial," or you just like to trash people's discussions (a trolling move). In either case, what does it take to get you to stop? You don't just post an opposing point of view, you mock other posters as if you think we're stupid. Enough. Last time I checked, we have just as much right to an opinion as you do Fremmer, but I don't see anyone treating you in the rude way you treat some of us. You do the same thing in every thread: you call people's opinions "conspiratorial" and then you talk down to them.
 
the sudden adoration of the NRA

I have no great love for the NRA, But they like the GOA are both important to gun owners. I was ticked off that the did not include Ron Paul. They can say all they want that they invited him. I don't think they support him and did not invite him so as not to tic off certain people such as people that are in office now whoever they may be.
 
Well, an RP supporter already provided you with the facts about what happened. And yet we still hear wild claims about how the NRA has "ignored" Ron Paul. So if you have any evidence that the NRA doesn't like Ron Paul, has ignored Ron Paul, or has any bias against Ron Paul, please post it; and the complaints of GOA or stuff from "the Source" doesn't count as evidence.

If you're going to bash the NRA, at least have something to back it up, which you clearly don't. I'm not trolling, I'm calling out a bunch of B.S. on a bash-the-NRA thread. Now show us the evidence. I can't wait.
 
Hold your horses Fremmer. I simply stated that I have no great love for the NRA and that I don't really buy what they are saying about the Ron Paul thing as in like anything there are two sides to every story and some place in the middle is what really happened. Could what the NRA rep said be the truth ? Yup. Do i have any hard evidence to the contrary ? Nope and I don't think I ever will. If you choose to believe their response, Then thats what you believe. I have been led down the garden path a few times and now I tend to take things with a grain of salt. Whether you care or not, I am a member of the NRA and will continue to be one. I think both the NRA and the GOA are both good organizations that are needed. Do believe and agree with everything they tell me ? Nope. I tend to make up my own mind on things so as not become Sheeple like. I did not intend to turn this into an NRA bashing thread.
 
Oh, you didn't turn this thread into a NRA bash; it started out that way from the first Post. Even after the NRA's explanation was provided, we still have people who think that there is some nefarious scheme by the NRA against Ron Paul.

So once again, I'd like something that shows that the NRA has ignored/doesn't like/is biased against Ron Paul. If nothing is offered other than a 'feeling' or a 'guess', I'll take that as an admission that these baseless allegations against the NRA are worthless. :)
 
Fremmer,

I pointed out on the first page of this thread that Ron Paul isn't too fond of the NRA, and it's not surprising that he would ignore them. Looking back in time a bit reveals the source of the feelings: the NRA joined with the Texas GOP to try to redistrict Paul out of Congress. When he changed districts in response, they backed his Republican primary challenger, as they are doing again this time around. In the general election, they backed his Dem opponent. They obviously don't like him and are biased against him, and he doesn't support them either. Note that I'm not saying they dislike him for no rational reason. They have their reasons, mostly to do with Paul's refusal to compromise.
 
Really? I've never seen the NRA state that it doesn't like Ron Paul, that it doesn't like him because he won't compromise; so there is still nothing other than a wild conspiracy theory to support the assertion that the NRA is ignoring Ron Paul and/or that the NRA excluded Ron Paul from the American Value's conference.

Once again: please provide something other than a guess, speculation, or a weird blog from "the source" which contradicts the NRA's explanation about what happened. Please. Because if you can't, then this is just a bash-the-NRA thread. Why not just admit it?
 
I've never seen the NRA state that it doesn't like Ron Paul

In politics, if you repeatedly endorse a candidate's primary and general election opponents, that's a pretty good indicator you don't like them.

In fairness, if a candidate ignores your event, as Ron Paul did the NRA's, it's a pretty good indicator he doesn't like the event sponsor.

There are other explanations, but I don't think the NRA and Ron Paul like each other, and it's too bad. I don't always like the NRA, especially their meddling in the Parker/Heller matter, but feel they've done way more good than harm overall.
 
GOA vis NRA

if this post is out of bounds say so. the NRA and Second Amendment foundation fought the New Orleans battle did Ron P or GAO?
the NRA is congress approved is GAO?
the NRA is the national shooting sports record keeping organization.the ILA is the political arm by law.
NRA supports those they think have best chance of winning their 80% win average is the point.I dont think RP has a chance.but thats my take.I can also say I dont know who I will vote for.[not a dem tho].:D:confused:
 
UGH: from the links you provided:

Is this supposed to be an objective report? :rolleyes:

NRA Endorses Gun Control Democrat, Lies About Ron Paul's Record

Jones Report | November 1, 2006
By Kevin Smith

Any doubt the NRA isn't a shill organization, have now been removed for all to see. The recent B rating given to Dr. Ron Paul (R) TX -14th District, is an outrage. According to the NRA's website as well as his challenger, Rep. Ron Paul's "B" rating indicates past votes for restrictive legislation. This is a blatant lie! When asked for the rating criteria, the NRA said they didn't publish one. According to Penny Langford Freeman, an aide to Congressman Paul, the lowered rating appears to be payback for Congressman Paul's opposition to the NRA's compromise gun locks legislation, which was added to a clean firearms manufacturer's protection bill.

Blah...blah...Ron Paul...blah...blah..Ron Paul...a light unto the world...blah...blah...blah..I offer up my own wife to bear his children so that future generations may bask in his greatness...blah...blah...blah...the only politician with any integrity....blah...blah..blah...

Ron Paul didn't vote against the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act because of John Warner's gun lock amendment to the bill. Paul voted against the LCFA because he believes it to be an impermissible intrusion on State's rights.

The NRA most likely lowered their rating for Paul based on genuinely bone-headed votes like that one, and rightfully so.
 
Last edited:
Of course it's not an objective report.

Go to the source...look at the home page: Moonbat Central.

Seriously, you HAVE to go look at this. It's the online home of the adolescent,fantasy driven, conspiracy theorist, "I'm UNIQUE" emo children:

http://jonesreport.com/
 
You guys can believe what you want to but it should be obvious to anyone that neither the NRA or Ron Paul have no love for one another and there's a strong possibility that it stems from the way he voted in the manufactures lawsuit thing. We all know that neither side will ever come right out and tell the real reason. Now we can have this urinating contest till the cows come home. I would say to whoever, if you have any proof to the contrary show us.
 
Quote:
NRA Endorses Gun Control Democrat, Lies About Ron Paul's Record

Jones Report | November 1, 2006
By Kevin Smith

Any doubt the NRA isn't a shill organization, have now been removed for all to see. The recent B rating given to Dr. Ron Paul (R) TX -14th District, is an outrage. According to the NRA's website as well as his challenger, Rep. Ron Paul's "B" rating indicates past votes for restrictive legislation. This is a blatant lie! When asked for the rating criteria, the NRA said they didn't publish one. According to Penny Langford Freeman, an aide to Congressman Paul, the lowered rating appears to be payback for Congressman Paul's opposition to the NRA's compromise gun locks legislation, which was added to a clean firearms manufacturer's protection bill.

Blah...blah...Ron Paul...blah...blah..Ron Paul...a light unto the world...blah...blah...blah..I offer up my own wife to bear his children so that future generations may bask in his greatness...blah...blah...blah...the only politician with any integrity....blah...blah..blah...

I'm sorry. I didn't see the Blah... blah stuff on the link I provided. :confused: Maybe it's my lying eyes. I will have to look again. Nope I still don't see it. Are we in High School ? This what I saw.

NRA Endorses Gun Control Democrat, Lies About Ron Paul's Record

Jones Report | November 1, 2006
By Kevin Smith

Any doubt the NRA isn't a shill organization, have now been removed for all to see. The recent B rating given to Dr. Ron Paul (R) TX -14th District, is an outrage. According to the NRA's website as well as his challenger, Rep. Ron Paul's "B" rating indicates past votes for restrictive legislation. This is a blatant lie! When asked for the rating criteria, the NRA said they didn't publish one. According to Penny Langford Freeman, an aide to Congressman Paul, the lowered rating appears to be payback for Congressman Paul's opposition to the NRA's compromise gun locks legislation, which was added to a clean firearms manufacturer's protection bill.

On the other hand, Gun Owners of America, as well as other leading gun rights groups, rate Rep. Paul with an A+. When executive director of GOA, Larry Pratt was informed of what the NRA was doing, he was quick to come to the aide of the Texas congressman.

Larry Pratt went on to relate that from the time Ron Paul got to Congress in 1976 he has been the staunchest of defenders of the 2nd Amendment. From his first days in Congress trying to use a constitutional remedy, the ‘One House Veto' to return residents of Washington D.C. their gun rights, to the continual moans of his own Republican party, “Oh here we go again” every time he try's to strike down existing gun laws. Pratt continued “This is a guy who's the real deal”, “let's get behind Ron Paul! He's been behind us”. When asked how GOA rated the challenger Shane Sklar, Mr. Pratt said “he didn't return the form, which is a very bad sign”.

Young Mr. Sklar, whose main battle cry is that the incumbent doesn't bring home enough pork, is out of step, a relic that can't work the system for his constituents. Ignored and irrelevant, is the claim directed at the most principled person in Washington. Congressman Paul's bills are now being recognized by many around the country as necessary to saving this country.

A new wrinkle has been added with the fake ratings by the NRA, now Mr. Sklar has launched a new campaign site emphasizing the fact that he's an avid hunter and fisherman. We all know this line “I support the gun rights of sportsman and hunters”, says Mr. Sklar. Versus something that the Statesman, Ron Paul would say, “the Second Amendment is not about hunting or your right to shoot skeet”.

We need all men and women who believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, regardless of political affiliations to come to the aid of the last great statesman of the United States of America, veteran, doctor, and scholar; Congressman Ron Paul.

We are in the midst of a detailed investigation into Shane Sklar, he's a registered lobbyist here in Texas. With ethics violations swirling around, his ties to Big Agra and organizations pushing the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) are very troubling; he has all the earmarks of being the corrupt establishment's boy.

Here are a few facts from sources here in Texas:

-Shane Sklar is: He is a registered lobbyist with ethics violations recorded with the TEC

-He has about $150k in personal debt according to his FEC report and he just turned 30 this year.

-Pelosi had a fundraiser for him in DC in July

-He had never been in the military though he says that he is pro military.(he's still young enough to enlist)

-He says that he is a farmer/rancher though he just borrowed money from his mother to invest in his family farm this year.

-His family has ties to oil.

-He is for amnesty(though he says that the illegals need to pay a fine and go to the back of the line, not be deported or prosecuted for breaking the law.)

-He says that he wants more money for farmers, roads, military, but yet wants to balance the budget.

More to come soon.
 
I'm sorry. I didn't see the Blah... blah stuff on the link I provided. Maybe it's my lying eyes. I will have to look again. Nope I still don't see it. Are we in High School ? This what I saw.


I paraphrased the article a tad for the sake of brevity.
 
"I'm not fond of the NRA. I'm jealously protective of the GOA. Take that for what you will."

Okay.

Do me a favor and ask your friends at GOA to stop lying about so many things.

John
Member www.vcdl.org
NRA Patron Member
 
Back
Top