ThinkProgress filed this report from Pittsburgh, PA at the NRA’s annual convention.

Shortly after the shooting massacre in Tucson earlier this year, President Obama called on all sides of the guns and gun control issue to come together to figure out ways to avoid future tragedies like Tucson. In March, the administration made good on the pledge and invited National Rifle Association officials to participate in closed-door meetings to hash out a way forward.

However, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre rejected that offer, despite the fact that various news reports said that in interviews, LaPierre “sounded at times like the White House” on the issue and “favored much of what Obama endorsed.” LaPierre explained his decision, “It shouldn’t be a dialogue about guns; it really should be a dialogue about dangerous people.” An Obama administration official said that it too wanted to “focus on the people, not the guns.” Nevertheless, the NRA was unwilling to talk.

Today, at the NRA’s annual convention in Pittsburgh, ThinkProgress asked a number of NRA members if they thought, in the wake of Tucson, NRA leaders and the Obama administration should, at the very least, sit down and discuss a way forward. While one person we spoke with said, “I really don’t know,” everyone else agreed, “It’s never a bad thing” to have conversation:

TP: I’m wondering if you think it’s a good idea to – or for the NRA leadership, I guess, and the Obama administration to sit down and talk about ways to prevent people like that from getting firearms – just to have a discussion about it.

NRA MEMBER 1: Yeah, a discussion is fine. … It’s never a bad thing to conversate about it. That’s how ideas are formed and things change. [...]

NRA MEMBER 2: It never hurts to talk. [...]

NRA MEMBER 3: If it’s a genuine conversation. [...]

NRA MEMBER 4: I would hope, I think a discussion is warranted. And I would hope there would be what they call some middle ground. … Yes I personally believe yes. I believe there should be discussions on a lot of things like that.

ThinkProgress also spoke with another attendee whose father is a lifetime NRA member. “I think it’s definitely worth a discussion,” she said, adding, “Everything is worth a discussion, so to just kind of get things out on the table and see each other’s point of view to see if there’s a compromise or a different way to do things.” Watch the interview clips:

So if NRA members think it’s a good idea to sit down and talk, why doesn’t the NRA leadership? As former NRA insider Richard Feldman once noted, “Safeguarding the rights of gun owners has become secondary to keeping the fundraising machinery well greased and the group’s senior staff handsomely compensated.” And how does the NRA do that? By making President Obama the enemy. After all, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, LaPierre said “gun rights are the safest they’ve been in 25 years.”

Back in 2008, presidential candidate Ron Paul released a nasty campaign ad showing undocumented immigrants sneaking across the border. “Ron Paul wants border security now,” declared the ad. “Physically secure the border, no amnesty, no welfare to illegal aliens, end birthright citizenship, no more student visas from terrorist nations,” proclaims the narrator. Watch it:

Now, it appears Paul has softened his tone. In an interview session with John Stossel, Paul expressed some doubts about the restrictionist positions that usually characterize the far right:

I don’t believe in the open borders. But I don’t like the idea of people wanting to build walls and fences and guns and thinking that the immigrant is the evil monster and the immigrant becomes the scapegoat of everything. I think that’s very very bad.

I do not support amnesty. [...] I’m not for amnesty but it’s absolutely impossible to think that anybody — no matter strongly feel against illegals — they’re not going to round up 12 or 15 million people. It doesn’t make any sense.

Watch it:

Paul also pointed out that “the purist Libertarian viewpoint is totally open-borders.” Yet, he quickly clarified that, “I don’t endorse that, I don’t think we are quite able to do that as long as people can come in here and take advantage of the welfare system.”

If that’s Paul’s only hesitation, he may want to take a closer a look and who actually qualifies to receive public benefits. Undocumented immigrants don’t qualify for any of the benefits of the “welfare system.” They do receive emergency care and their children can attend public schools. That is about it when it comes to the benefits that they are allowed to receive.

Of course, an open borders policy is totally unrealistic. Yet, Paul’s tempered position stands in sharp contrast to that of his son’s. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). When Sen. Paul was running for office, he infamously proposed building an underground electric fence. He later “clarified” that he would prefer it be built above ground.

Ron Paul announced earlier this week that he is forming a presidential exploratory committee.