Although the big political story this weekend was the (utterly unsurprising) announcement by Hillary Clinton that she is running for president in 2016, there was something else that may have slipped under the radar. Every significant announced (or potential) GOP candidate for president attended the convention except two: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Although Christie has made some headlines for pardoning Pennsylvanian Shaneen Allen who was caught up in the web of New Jersey’s asinine firearms laws . . .

Christie received only a “C” grade from the NRA in his 2013 re-election campaign and isn’t generally known for taking strong stands in defending the Second Amendment. His absence therefore was not surprising.

Not so much for Sen. Paul, who received an “A” rating from the NRA, and is generally known for being one of the most libertarian members of the Senate. Although the WSJ’s Washington Wire Blog reports that “the NRA chalked up Mr. Paul’s absence from Nashville to scheduling concerns,” it also reported that the junior senator from Kentucky was being shunned due to his connections with another group – the National Association for Gun Rights.

Top NRA officials are unhappy that Mr. Paul has for years lent his name to fundraising solicitations for the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), a group that fashions itself a more conservative alternative to NRA. Mr. Paul’s aides have been told by the NRA he will be unwelcome to participate at NRA events as long as he remains affiliated with NAGR, according to people familiar with the conversation.

Although NAGR and the NRA have the same objectives in mind, the two groups have differed on ways to achieve those ends. For instance: the NRA supports national concealed carry reciprocity; NAGR opposes it on the grounds of federalism, calling it a “trojan horse” for more government control in a recent press release.

According to the Washington Times,

Mr. Paul’s image is used on NAGR’s fundraising materials, adn the group consistently sends out both emails and letters credited to Mr. Paul on gun rights issues. Before the 2014 midterms the senator hosted a telemarketing call with about 6,000 NAGR supporters requesting $100 donations to help win political races, and in January he appeared at a NAGR-sponsored event in New Hampshire.

The Times article is worth reading in full, and it explains why NAGR tends to be a little controversial in some gun-rights circles.

Raising money is certainly important in presidential politics, and whatever the reason, Paul was a no-show at a venue where a lot of committed activists were in attendance, many of whom still have to decide who should receive their support in 2016.

107 Responses to Rand Paul a NRA Convention No-Show

  1. What a non story. He’s not at NRA because he’s affiliated with two other pro gun rights groups which is actually GOOD because if he’s not with the NRA then Dems think he’s anti gun which means Hitlery won’t be elected and gun rights will still stand.

    • Because of his other views on war and drugs and so forth he may not have felt welcome. While I do agree with most of his views, I do believe he has no real chance of winning either the Republican primary or the general.

      • I think he would have a better chance at the general than all the others, he has lots of appeal to the swing votes. But the good ol’ boys at the top of the GOP want to give it to “whoever’s turn is next”.

        • Jeb can go pound sand in a sand dune for all I care. Krisp Krispy can pound a doughnut. Or 2.

        • Exactly. This is how the GOP shoots themselves in the foot… Ostracize the very candidate that appeals to the 3 million voters that got OBama elected in 2012.

      • His views on war, drugs, and domestic spying are actually pretty mainstream, even in the republican party.
        His biggest issue won’t be support from the voters (at least not the ones who know about him), it’ll be getting money for ads (the big corporate donors want favors in return, and he’s got that integrity thing), and not getting shunned and downplayed by the media, like his dad was.

        • Demonstrating the slightest bit of criticism for the warfare-welfare-pervert state instantly puts Rand Paul out of the mainstream.

        • >> His views on war, drugs, and domestic spying are actually pretty mainstream, even in the republican party.

          Domestic spying was originally passed by mainstream Republicans and keeps being extended by them.

          I’ve yet to hear any Republican candidate other than Paul support complete decriminalization of marijuana on federal level.

          As for war, he was booed by Republican audiences several times when he tried to talk to them about the perils of waging constant wars overseas, same as his dad.

      • Actually, he has a much better chance than many would think. His drug views could be put in the context of getting the Fed out of it and leaving it to the States and their people to work out on their own. Likewise on the marriage issue, where it’s that the federal gov’t has no business in marriage at all. He could sell that, I think.

        He’s been doing a lot of college groundwork and has made some real inroads into that demographic, so he has a real opportunity to steal a lot of those votes from Democrats, as well. This group is not 50 year old Democrats who base their party affiliations on family history or who was president during the Great War.

        I think Rand, Ted or Scott has a high likelihood of beating Hillary. In one regard, though, I would really like to see Rand as the candidate. Am I the only person who relishes the fantasy of Rand Paul shushing Hillary during one of the Presidential debates? It would be right there with Reagan’s “There you go again…” line against Carter.

        • >> I think Rand, Ted or Scott has a high likelihood of beating Hillary.

          Cruz? No way. He’ll lose way too many women, minority and young voters on account of his social policies.

  2. Rand Paul is the most pro-gun out of all the candidates. But the NRA prefers establishment GOP. Which is why an A rating republican who vetoed a pro-gun bill got the endorsement over an A+ democrat who supported the bill.

    • Electing A++++++ (with unicorns and sparkles)+++ Democrats enables other Democrats, and so is still a net negative for gun freedom.

        • We have that in the state legislature in Tallahassee. My rep in the state house is liberal and married to a gun banner. How ever, she has always voted pro-2A and pro-self defense. She also championed the campus carry bill when it was in her committee. It past 3 house committees by a wide margin and 2 in the Senate. However, it is stuck in the Judiciary Committee because the republican chair of that committee is afraid to call for a vote because he is afraid it will pass. Its unclear if the Senate pres told him to kill it in committee or what, but the Senate Pres is denying it.

        • As long as people keep voting by consonant instead of principles, this is how it will stay for years.

        • Minnesota has a fair number like that. There are lots of ultra-liberal city Dems in Minneapolis/St. Paul, but northern MN has a lot of union labor influence. That tips Democrat too, but you tend to see more of the rural, blue-collar type of Democrats and a decent number of them are at least neutral, if not outright pro-gun.

          It’s about the only way I can explain MN still being reasonably gun-friendly (except for the rather pointless ban on suppressors, which may be repealed by a bill currently under discussion), despite not voting for a Republican presidential candidate since Nixon.

        • Federal party platform is less important on state and local levels, and historically Democrats were the blue collar, unions party first and foremost, so in some places that component still dominates (and it can be fairly conservative on most issues other than labor).

  3. Can’t question that man’s 2A bona fides. Not real happy with the title of this article. The article itself is fine, but the title is very misleading.

        • I have no doubt that this is exactly what is happening. I will guess that whoever is Netanyahu’s biggest cheerleader with an (R) beside their name is who he will promote.

          While I’m no anti-semite, I never understood Americans with the “Israel comes first” attitude.

          I grew up in an Irish-Catholic family where we were well-aware of the troubles in Northern Ireland from a young age, but none of my family members would ever consider Irish affairs above the best interest of our American Republic

        • Interesting comment Irish1776. which americans specifically promotes Isreal interests over our own?

          I promote Isreals ability to defend itself from genocide by the surrounding muslim countries.

          I think anyone promoting trading land for a “Palestinian homeland” for peace in Isreal is absolutely insane. It would just mean the Muslims would have less land they would need to clear of those pesky jews.

          I think anyone that promotes the idea the the jews in Isreal are the “oppressors” and that the “Palestinians” are down trodden by the boot of Isreal are in denial, see points above.

          So I’m curious, what would be some examples of Americans promoting Isreals interests “first” over our own?

        • ThomasR,
          Americans who put Israel’s interests before those of the United States:
          John McCain
          All Members of AIPAC
          Lindsey Graham
          Chuckie Schumer
          Chuckie Krauthammer
          Billy Boy Kristol
          Jonah Goldberg
          Jenny Rubin
          John Hagee
          Robert “Bob” Menendez
          Most anyone appearing on NBC, ABC, CBS, or FOX.
          Johnny Bolton
          Jonny Pollard
          That is just off the top of my head, with a little more research I could come up with some more traitors.

        • So Chris Mallory. You listed quite a few people.. so specifically, how do these people put the interest of Isreal over America?

        • I don’t know what you want us to say?

          Some of the PNAC and AIPAC folks actually used to use the term in what they perceived was a positive way, until a HuffPo columnist named Rosenberg brought the sentiment and moniker into widespread debate in the media sphere, and now it is generally viewed as having negative connotations.

          Many Christian churches do promote the Israel first creedo to their congregations as the righteous path. If you haven’t encountered this, you likely haven’t been to many evangelical Chuches. The above aforementioned John Hagee literally worships the State of Israel. It is bizarre.

          I will say this: Allies generally have a relationship that is somehow equitable, mutually beneficial, or anchored to some ideological alignment. Israel has spied on us continuously throughout their history. Even recent intelligence whitepapers finger Israel as possibly THE most prolific initiator of espionage against US interests. Ever heard of the Jonathan Pollard case?

          Just because someone isn’t unconditionally rooting for “Team Israel”, does not mean they are automatically siding with Israels enemies. Nor does it mean that someone is an anti-semite.

        • Those listed people do not put Israel’s interests above the United States, they support Israel strongly though as they do not make any moral equivalence lance between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The Democrats and the isolationist conservative Republicans and libertarians make an equivalence and/or are tainted with anti-Semitism in certain parts.

        • Sure. Because someone doesn’t agree with NeoCon hawks and political Zionism, they MUST be anti-semites. That is the only reason someone can disagree with the Likudnik strategy. There is no other possible logical discourse, the ONLY possible motivation is that they side with Palestine or they are bigoted.

          Have you read the PNAC Whitepaper “Rebuilding Americas Defenses”? How about the Israeli equivalent, “Securing the Realm: A Clean Break”; have you read this? Does it not represent a conflict of interests that PNAC drew a roadmap for the systematic invasion and occupation of a whole slew of nations under the guise of fighting terrorism that did not even exist at the time, a roadmap which we are still following.

          No problem with the fact that these people occupied some of the most influential positions in Washington, but all retained dual Israeli-American citizenship? No conflict of interest there?

          Nothing to say about the constant spying? Didn’t think so. Read the last statement in my previous post again.

        • Sure. Because someone doesn’t agree with NeoCon hawks and political Zionism, they MUST be anti-semites. That is the only reason someone can disagree with the Likudnik strategy. There is no other possible logical discourse, the ONLY possible motivation is that they side with Palestine or they are bigoted.

          No, but there are some in the hard-right/libertarian portion who are anti-Semitic. Just look at how Ron Paul had his picture taken with Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, and took a donation from Stormfront. A portion of the anti-Federal Reserve libertarian right is tied into the old notion that it is a Jewish banking conspiracy. And “neocons” are not hawks, that is a caricature.

          Have you read the PNAC Whitepaper “Rebuilding Americas Defenses”? How about the Israeli equivalent, “Securing the Realm: A Clean Break”; have you read this? Does it not represent a conflict of interests that PNAC drew a roadmap for the systematic invasion and occupation of a whole slew of nations under the guise of fighting terrorism that did not even exist at the time, a roadmap which we are still following.

          No problem with the fact that these people occupied some of the most influential positions in Washington, but all retained dual Israeli-American citizenship? No conflict of interest there?

          Nothing to say about the constant spying? Didn’t think so. Read the last statement in my previous post again.

          All countries spy on one another. Will have to read the roadmap. But that doesn’t change the basic neoconservative positions.

        • I have to stop you here about the Ron Paul thing. I have family friends who have personally known Ron Paul and his family for decades. Ron Paul is absolutely positively not an anti-Semite. Hundreds of thousands of people contributed to Ron Pauls various campaigns. At campaign events hundreds, even thousands of people will line up to snap a quick photo with a candidate over a couple days time.

          Do you think that Ron Paul, one of the Congressmen with the most sterling, Constitutionally sound voting records in modern Congressional history, and a successful physician… would be stupid enough to knowingly link himself to a Nazi group? Numerous KKK groups contributed to Obamas presidency, look it up. Do you think Obama supports the KKK?

          To say that Neo-Cons aren’t hawkish is just absurd. Do you understand the roots and history of the so-called Neo-conservative movement. They ideologically support a globalist agenda that is completely contradictory to traditional conservative values. They are responsible for implementing potentially irreparable far reaching policies that have created secret courts, repealed Posse Comitatus, turned the US into a Police State, shredded our rights to privacy and due process, and brand traditional American values as domestic extremism.

          I’m not going to waste any more breath dealing with you since you are the type of guy that thinks John Boehner is “doing a good job.” If I had to guess I would say you are actually either Dick Cheney, or you personally identify yourself as a Zionist, since you seem to be waving that flag.

        • I have to stop you here about the Ron Paul thing. I have family friends who have personally known Ron Paul and his family for decades. Ron Paul is absolutely positively not an anti-Semite. Hundreds of thousands of people contributed to Ron Pauls various campaigns. At campaign events hundreds, even thousands of people will line up to snap a quick photo with a candidate over a couple days time.

          That means nothing. Why then did he have his photo taken with a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan? Why did his campaign then take a donation from the website created by said Grand Dragon?

          Do you think that Ron Paul, one of the Congressmen with the most sterling, Constitutionally sound voting records in modern Congressional history, and a successful physician… would be stupid enough to knowingly link himself to a Nazi group? Numerous KKK groups contributed to Obamas presidency, look it up. Do you think Obama supports the KKK?

          Obama’s campaign rejected donations from KKK groups. And yes, I think Paul would be stupid enough to do that, because he strikes me as a crackpot conspiracy theorist. All you need do is read some of his books or listen to him on such as the Trilateral Council, or how he claimed a border fence is a bad idea because it could be used to keep Americans in. Or his constant talk of America maintaining an “empire” (which is a huge oversimplification of the whole issue) and his belief that the best foreign policy is strict isolationism and just ignoring the rest of the world except for trade. He really showed this during the 2008 election when he showed himself to be absolutely clueless regarding foreign policy. I suppose he figured he didn’t need to know it because as President, we would just not engage in it. He is a principled man in terms of his beliefs, but that doesn’t mean his views aren’t wacky.

          To say that Neo-Cons aren’t hawkish is just absurd. Do you understand the roots and history of the so-called Neo-conservative movement. They ideologically support a globalist agenda that is completely contradictory to traditional conservative values. They are responsible for implementing potentially irreparable far reaching policies that have created secret courts, repealed Posse Comitatus, turned the US into a Police State, shredded our rights to privacy and due process, and brand traditional American values as domestic extremism.

          I fully understand the roots of neoconservatism. Neoconservatism arose as a response to the horrors of Nazism and Soviet communism. Unlike traditional conservatism which tended to be much more isolationist (and which had good values in terms of its idea of prudence with regards to the use of military force), neoconservatism calls for a very robust national defense and a muscular foreign policy. Traditional conservatism’s foreign policy doesn’t work for the post-WWII world, as it was workable back when the British Empire was the underwriter of global trade and global security. After WWII, that role passed to the United States.

          But a muscular foreign policy and robust national defense does not equate to being hawkish. Hawkish implies one is just willing to dive in, to shoot first and ask questions later, which is not the case. Neoconservatism is not globalist in its thinking, it is to the contrary very patriotic. You think George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were “globalist?” They were hated by most of the “global” types. Neoconservatism has not created secret courts or repealed Posse Comitatus. nor has it shredded our rights to privacy or due process (that is more Obama), and to claim that the U.S. has been turned into a police state is just silly. In fact, one of the quintessential neoconservatives, Charles Krauthammer, is vehemently against the use of drones by law enforcement, because they are strictly as he sees it a weapon of war, not something for law enforcement.

          I’m not going to waste any more breath dealing with you since you are the type of guy that thinks John Boehner is “doing a good job.” If I had to guess I would say you are actually either Dick Cheney, or you personally identify yourself as a Zionist, since you seem to be waving that flag.

          Nope, I am not a huge fan of John Boehner. And no I am not Dick Cheney.

        • I don’t know what else to say to you. Either you get all of your information from Fox News, and carefully curated media, or you are gullible or in denial……or you are just part of the problem.

  4. This guy is the real deal, which is why he doesn’t stand a chance of being the nominee, much less being president. I got a bad feeling we’re getting another statist, rino or neocon.

  5. Amerika, especially those who pull the “R” lever no matter what, deserve Hitlery. In some ways, I’ll enjoy her election to the Presidency, getting to watch stupid people be punished.

    • Horses$&t! Clinton 2.0 can be defeated. Those in power want us to give up. You can crawl off into your man cave and put your hands in your pants… I for one will fight for what I want in the world.

  6. Rand Paul not chumming with the NRA? That doesn’t bother me in the least. Anyone aware of Paul’s history knows that he’s extremely right wing – pro-2A, limited government, pro-Constitution, etc.

  7. TTAG should run a straw poll, I would vote for him over any of the other candidates, and if a Bush runs (and I LIKED the previous Bush) against a Clinton I’m staying home.

    • anyone is better then the wicked witch Killery. jeb sucks, but vs any democrat hes still better.

      i wish Rand Paul was not do weak. hes got a lot of good ideas but has about as much presence or charisma of Erkle and about as scarry as a captain of the chess club.

      jeb lol is a joke i hope they find some skeletons in his closet before we end up losing again.

    • You should still go and pull the lever for the pro 2a candidates you feel like you can vote for…even if we don’t vote for Jeb in the general.

      • Which are the actions of a spoiled child unless you honestly think Hillary is better for 2A issues and the Supreme court justices she picks.

        • Jeb has a bit of work to do if he would like to distinguish himself from Hillary on a range if issues.

  8. Not talking to people who have the same goals but different ideas on achieving them… great idea. I’m sure the NRA is doing just fine reminding people of how black Obama is to bother.

  9. Though nobody here doubts Rand Paul would support gun rights vociferously, I sure wish he did the dance and genuflected to the NRA crowd. I mean, the candidates come to speak to the people, not just the NRA leadership. He should have come.

    What is this about being asked to not attend?

    • Why should he? Rand Paul supports the 2nd Amendment because he believes it guarantees a natural right. Most of the other panderers that show up would find some sneaky way to sell the 2A down the river and do it in a heartbeat if it guaranteed them votes on Israel, defense contracts, or abortion.

      • Exactly. Rand Paul is the only candidate who doesn’t need to come and pander to the NRA crowd, because his 2A bonafides are so solid. Most of the the other candidates have to show up and put on a show to paper over their sketchy history on 2A issues.

  10. Rand Paul is to weak to even have a Chance. he would need 100% turnout from young people. to many are willing to cheat and steal for the Commucrats. add millions of illegal voting plus millions on refugees voting.

    hes weak on immigration, foreign policy and on defending our rights. last is hes to open on Drugs.

    agree or not on legalizing or decriminalization ….. hes got no plan but talks about it soo much he freaks out many if not most conservatives.

    • His plan on drugs is “leave it to the states”, What do you find objectionable or imprecise about that?

  11. I agree that the headline is misleading. I’m sure that Larry Pratt and Alan Gottlieb weren’t in Nashville either. Between the three now declared Republican candidates, Cruz,Paul, and Rubio, well they’re my top picks anyway, but as a Florida resident I don’t get a primary vote until August of 2016, and usually the nomination is sewn up by that point.

    I received an unsolicited email from Scott Walker’s campaign regarding his support for the 2nd, but he hasn’t declared yet.

    I think given Sen. Bob Menendez’s indictment, Christie will run for that seat instead of President.

    That leaves Jeb Bush. Given his father’s hatred of the Second Amendment (only member of the Texas Congressional Delegation to vote in favor of The Gun Control Act of 1968, his 1989 ban on imported “assault rifles”), and his brother’s willingness to sign another AWB law in 2004, and his refusal to rescind his Dad’s ’89 executive order, let’s just say that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. If Bush ends up with the nomination, I’ll hold my nose and vote for him, as should everyone who owns a firearm, but I won’t cast a primary vote for him.

    There is NO ONE on the democrat side who is even close to being gun friendly. Clinton? Warren? O’Malley? Chafee? The only democrat who might not be an all out enemy to the Second Amendment is Jim Webb, and he hasn’t even made the most tentative steps toward declaring his candidacy.

  12. I like the way Paul looks out for the rights of gun owners as a constitutionalist as opposed to a sportsman. He’s not afraid to specifically and publicly say what needs to be said however politically incorrect it may be at the time… http://americanlibertypac.com/2015/03/rand-paul-stop-obamas-ammo-ban/
    For those of us who can remember history, the NRA wasn’t always so pro gun. A ride in the wayback machine – May 1968 issue of Guns and Ammo is a real eye opener with the NRA president sounding more like Feinstein or Bloomberg… “The National Rifle Association in the weeks following the decision (Supreme Court – Warren decision) asked Congress to act to pass new laws against private ownership of such weapons. (short barreled shotguns, SBR’s, machine guns, silencers) “these gangsterland weapons have no place in the legitimate sport of shooting” NRA president Franklin L. Orth said”.
    It seems now they are trying to undue all the bullsh*t laws they helped create back then. I realize politics is and always has been a balancing act but when given a choice, I’ll always go for the guy who fundamentally believes that citizens rights come first. Rand Paul has always been very consistent to that end. To hell with any others that are just paying lip service.

    • Well to be fair, “they” didn’t help create those laws, the people running the organization back then did, who were later run out of the NRA.

  13. I dont take anything from Rand Paul not being in attendance at the NRA Show, I believe he is still a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. As far as whether he is more supportive of the NRA or the NAGR is irrelevant, heck I am a lifetime member of the NRA and a member of the NAGR, why because they are fighting for the same thing. I think many who support the 2nd may have associations with multiple gun rights organizations. I believe in the end Mr. Paul is a candidate I will give very strong consideration to, along with all the other true conservative non RINO candidates.

  14. I would vote for any Paul in a heart beat. If only the system weren’t so corrupt to let some real honest folk into the highest office of the land.

  15. Rand Paul is the only person I’ll vote for. I’d rather see four years of Hillary than have Jeb in the oval office. Why? Because the GOP needs to learn that we aren’t going to vote for their Bushes and McCains anymore — that until they stop force-feeding us the establishment types, we will suffer through a Democrat-controlled government. Don’t like it? Then give us true patriots.

    We know what we want. We want liberty. Shackles are shackles, whether made by Republicans or Democrats.

    • I concur with your sentiments.

      What irks me is… why is the NRA acting like a jealous little girl? Aren’t all of the legitimate Pro 2A groups fighting different fronts of the same battle?

  16. Does it matter all statistics show that none if these candidates have a chance in hell of even attempting to best Clinton in 16.

    • That’s not true at all. Try looking at some recent polling. They’re all within a few percentages of Hitlery.

      • The percentages don’t matter, since it’s not a direct election. The electoral votes do. Go ahead and see which states are “solid blue”, which are “solid red”, and which are up for grabs. Then look at which way those swing states have voted lately.

  17. can’t those here understand that the drug laws are the impetus for the anti gun laws. RAND PAUL does. Think about how the two are related to legislators and law enforcement. RAND PAUL does, and his positions on both issues show that. I will stay home if Jeb is the nominee! No more holding my nose. Bob Dole! John McCain! Mit Romney. .. as my Jewish friends say… NEVER AGAIN!

    • Drugs laws are part of the reason for the decline in gun violence, due to having cracked down on hard drug use. They are the friend of gun rights, not the enemy. And IMO Rand Paul doesn’t have a shot in hell at winning, and especially now after he has come across as not being able to control his temper and being seen by some as sexist. If people like you stay home, then don’t be surprised to say hello to President Hillary Clinton.

        • It is very fashionable in libertarian circles to talk about how the War on Drugs has been a huge failure and so forth, how we should just legalize all drugs, but it’s not true. You can’t fix the problem of drug use, no more than you can fix the problems of poverty, crime, corruption, etc…but such problems can be managed to a degree, either good or badly. Before the War on Drugs, we had a ton of hard drug use, and a result, a ton of violent crime along with it. Gun violence rates were higher as a result. Since the War on Drugs, where the government has worked consistently to crack down on such drug use, the violent crime associated with it has as a result diminished, and with it, a lot of the gun violence.

          Miami is a good example. In the late 1970s to early 1980s, the drug trade there began resulting in extreme violence because of the fighting among the cartels. Legalizing it would not have stopped the cartel violence. By cracking down hard on the drug trade, the problem was brought under much more control, and the gun violence where people were being gunned down was greatly reduced.

        • Hey guys, look! I found a breathing unrepentant Nixon voter!

          Your take on drugs & violence is so wrong it’s not even worth addressing. But ignoring that for a moment, even if everything that you say is absolutely correct, why is it federal government doing this thing, and why are they doing it without a constitutional grant of power? Last time the people wanted the feds to do that kind of thing, they had to pass a constitutional amendment (and later when they got tired of it, repeal it with another amendment). Now feds are breaking into people’s doors over possession of a substance, completely circumventing state and local law – and you’re saying that it’s all well and good, because it’s a “worthy cause”? And then you call yourself conservative?

          And Paul doesn’t campaign for making marijuana legal, by the way. What he is trying to do is get the feds out of it, and let the states ban or regulate or be hands-off as they see fit. Which is exactly how it should be in a federal republic.

        • The War on Drugs has certainly allowed the government to abuse its power and that needs to be reigned in some, as it is mostly the war against hard drug use that has been good, but my point is that for gun rights overall, it has been an aid. That said, I also understand your point about leaving it to the states.

  18. Every 2A supporter should realize that without the other REAL 2A organizations, like the Gun Owners of America, the NRA would still be a “hunters” club. The Rand Paul snub, if real, should make every 2A lover realize that the NRA leadership is to be constantly reminded where it’s support comes from.

  19. I’ll have to check out the NAGR. I’ve refused to join the NRA because of their lackluster stance on gun rights– and I made this decision long before they tried to derail Heller.

    It probably is better for Paul that he avoid the NRA– the good cop/bad cop strategy is a good one.

  20. Headline is misleading. Others have pointed it out. At this point, leaving it the way it is, implying it was Paul’s choice not to show, is outright dishonest.

  21. Politicians imo say anything do anything, an stand for all things. Then they get a term, in office. An everything goes in the drain.
    The democrats show liberal foolish.
    The Republicans show gun support, and for the county folk.
    But in office, especially presidential office. They seem “greedy” (asking for money for everything an taking many trips), do underhanded tactics, either for or against conflicts depending on the gains not the best interests. All seem to preach one thing an do a 180 on most things. If Rand Paul makes it I may vote on him. If THEY have a track record for gun support, & republican chances are I will vote them for president. Like I did last few times, I have voted independent, republican, and 3rd party for the majority most part. I sure cant stand Barry, Hillary,Biden, Kerry, or half the others. I kinda liked that one dem that ran for prez # of years ago until the scandal broke he had a mistress an the sick wife.
    THOSE THAT FAIL TO RECALL HISTORY, ARE SURE TO REPEAT IT IN MUCH THE SAME WAYS.
    It stands for empires, countries, citizens, and individuals. Ways, an politics, it covers every aspect of life.
    🙂

  22. I said I KINDA liked him. I wasn’t suckered in. An I didnt say I voted for him either, Doe.
    But it is tricky sometimes picking between 2evils..

  23. If anybody thinks the NRA is for full and true Second Amendment Rights, you’ve been greatly deceived. They are showing themselves to be the Fudds and Butters of the 2A community. I’m not a fan of OC, but when they came out against it here in Texas, they showed their true colors. Of course they backpedaled as fast as possible, but it was a character defining moment for them. Too late NRA, I’m done with you guys forever.

    Support the real and true Second Amendment organization, the National Association for Gun Rights!!

  24. Even if he hadn’t been snubbed by the NRA, who cares if he attends the trade show or not? It doesn’t mean squat next to his record. I’m not a huge fan of some of Rand Paul’s ideas but I’m certainly not worried about his 2a credentials…

  25. The NRA. Fightin’ for your Rights, our way or the highway!

    I’m not a huge fan of Rand “Liberpublican” Paul either, but this kind of behavior is eating your own – Screw the NRA.

    • Not to mention backing Harry Reid when Sharron Angle was running against him.
      Guess which of those two is an anti-gun POS?

      But I guess that’s one time we couldn’t call them the National Republican Association.

  26. There is no question that Paul has the bonefides, It doesn’t bother me that he wasn’t there. I have more confidence that Paul will support civilian gun rights than I do some of the panderers that regularly show up like Lindsey Graham.

  27. In a way, I’m happy I live in WA. WA doesn’t seem to have much/any effect on primaries, and It is, essentially, guaranteed to vote D for the general election (for President, at least); I get to vote my conscious whenever I vote for president, because my vote (even if everyone in my state who thought like me and voted, voted for the R) truly cannot turn that blue into red. It is freeing, because I don’t have to weigh guilt vs conscious; in a swing type state I may have to consider the greater good of trying to swing the state towards liberty. Here I can just vote directly for the most libertarian (lower case l) candidate and feel good about it.

  28. If I was Rand, I wouldn’t have gone if I was asked to. The NRA has helped to undermine our rights, they give improper ratings, and now they are in cahoots with the ATF to further undermine our rights. NAGR, GOA, JPFO, etc are worthy of our support and replacing NRA.

  29. For instance: the NRA supports national concealed carry reciprocity; NAGR opposes it on the grounds of federalism, calling it a “trojan horse” for more government control
    …..and NAGR may be right.

  30. NAGR just wants your cash and is a Front for the left. they are on the opposite side of to many things.

      • every email i got from NAGR was trashing all the other pro 2nd amendment groups. how they are better and everyone else is lying to you. no proof, no links to stories of any interest, just here links to sign this petitions and donate money. aka lists.

        every email said send us donations or we cant email you anymore. every email was my last chance. every day for 2 years till i removed myself from list. they kept coming took 5 attempts before they stopped. but every email was supposed to be last one they can send me legally. anymore would be breaking the law. they claimed that federal law prevents non profits from communicating with anyone that is not a Donor. for over 2 years.

        so no NAGR has Zero credibility.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *