I wonder why you keep avoiding the substantative questions, would attempting to answer them would expose the lack of factual information and illogic upon which the unsupported opinions are based?

Why don't you simply tell everyone how and why an organization having corporate donors makes them de facto shills for such donors if that's your position? In your view there is no reason to provide any factual basis to show any cause and effect, the mere fact that an organization accepts corporate funding by default makes them corporate shills. You're either unwilling or incapable of demonstrating that the NRA after accepting corporate funding has altered their position away from supporting the interests of their membership and towards supporting a position not in the interest of their membership in response to accepting corporate funding.

Rather than showing where the NRA has placed the interests of its corporate contributors above that of its membership you've been reduced to relying on your own subjective interpretation of the "essence" of what LaPierre statements mean to you. Hardly objective, hardly logical, and hardly accurate.

I apologise if you interpreted my comments as personally insulting, such unwillingness and inability to provide any support for what is plainly nothing more than a subjective opinion based on little or no fact in my mind demonstrates a particular type of ignorrance perhaps willing or perhaps insurmountable that is often associated with people who are easily duped into believing things unsupported by fact. I'm sure if someone like that was able to make a coherent, cogent, and fact based arguement in support of their opinion, it would easily demonstrate the inaccuracy of my present assesment.

So rather than attempting to play and then cowering behind the "victim of insult card" why not address the question that has been posed in response to your unsupported claim, explain the where, why and hows of what supports your belief that the NRA is a "completely bought and paid for gun manufacturer/seller corporate shill". The only evidence you've claimed of the NRA's corporate shilling is the fact they have accepted corporate funding, do you base your claim of the NRA being a corporate shill on anything besides that? Is an organization accepting corporate funding in and of itself proof that it is nothing more than a corporate shill and as a result shills exclusively in that corporate interest?

I understand if you won't or can't support your position, but if I might be so bold as to suggest, perhaps you and Tom can get together and compare notes, formulate a co-response, and muster the effort and conviction to make your case, that way you both can get some credit even if it's only for the effort applied separate from the quality of any work product, as you two seem to have discovered something of a "meeting of the minds" regarding this issue.