Quote:
Originally Posted by elchivito
Your attempt to put me on the defensive is transparent. Nice try. You've offered no proof of your own position, how does it happen that MINE is the one that needs to be supported? Prove to me they are NOT a corporate shill, or your argument is "unsupported", "illogical".
I have posted elsewhere on this board a list of the NRAs corporate donors. They are virtually all gun and ammunition manufacturers. Gosh, I suppose that's coincidental. Purely happenstance that Remington would want to give millions to the NRA. Why, they could have just as easily given it to the Red Cross. Or the Brady Foundation.
Here is a list of bills the NRA lobbied in 2012. Sure, some of them are feelgood 2A stuff designed to swell the bubbas' chests, a few have to do with hunting, but all either directly or indirectly benefit the arms industry. It's all the evidence I need. Since your stridence in this matter makes it evident that you'll never accept ANY evidence offered, I couldn't care less whether it meets your approval or not.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/lobby.php?id=D000000082
Cute apology too Billy. You can save it. Nobody's cowering behind anything here besides you and your chickens hit IP addresses  |
I appreciate you confirming my original assessment, it's been clear from the beginning that your position was little more than BS opinion. You've made the declarative statement the the NRA is a shill for their corporate funders and that it represents the interest of those funders and not the interest of it's membership. You have provided nothing except the fact that corporate funding has been accepted. You made the claim it is incumbent on you to support it.
The NRA is a corporate shill is a dishonest meme you are willingly propagating because if you had the courage to honestly discuss the basis for your opinion you and it would be exposed as such.
Let's face the facts, the NRA is an organization with over 4 million individual members, based on the information you have chosen to rely upon they receive from firearms industry at the most $38.9 million dollars and the NRA has annual budget of no less than $220 million dollars. So even when I use the largest figure for firearms industry contributions and the lowest estimated NRA budget, the reality is the NRA receives at the very most only 17.68% of its funding from the firearms industry, considerably less than 1/5th of it total funding. That means the membership and non firearms supporters provide at the very least 82.32% of the NRA funding!
So why don't you explain for everyone how less than 1/5th funding constitutes "bought and paid for by the gun industry"? Is it even plausible that an organization that depends on 80+% of it's funding, predominantly membership contributions could conduct it's operations in a way that contradicts the views and interests of its vast majority of primary funders and survive? Do you think all the 4 million + contributing members are too blind, deaf and stupid to see if the NRA was acting against their interests and only in the interests of the minority firearms industry corporate funders?
And I'm willing to use your source of information the VCP, you know that faux fact generator, wholly owned subsidiary of the anti 2nd Amendment left that has no membership, 100% liberal non-profit corporate funding The Joyce foundation, the Herb Block Foundation, the David Bolnett Foundation, Mayors Fund to Advance New York City, Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence among others which consists of a couple progressive activists who in return for direct funding produce "reports" detailing predetermined biases in accordance with their funder's wishes. This is how they operate:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/VPCandPeople.pdf
And you've got the audacity to call the NRA a corporate funding shill!
You've made the claim that the NRA acts in the interest of the gun industry and not in the interest of its membership, yet the info you've provided regarding the 2012 legislative activity does not show a single effort that did not benefit the interest of its membership any less than its corporate supporters. In fact you had to start by admitting there was support for legislation that benefited the interest of "bubbas" and hunters, and the rest either directly or indirectly benefited the gun industry. Of course you where completely negligent in providing a single example of the NRA supporting legislation that benefited the gun industry but did not also benefit their membership as well. The reality is legislation the supports the 2nd Amendment benefits the NRA membership as well as the gun industry that the 2nd Amendment relies upon to provide sustenance to the individual choosing to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elchivito
... Prove to me they are NOT a corporate shill, or your argument is "unsupported", "illogical".
I have posted elsewhere on this board a list of the NRAs corporate donors. They are virtually all gun and ammunition maufacturers....
|
Reading is fundamental! Maybe a little remedial reading would be a better investment of your time and effort? From your VCP “Report”:
“The vast majority of funds—74 percent—contributed to the NRA from “corporate partners” are members of the firearms industry: companies involved in the manufacture or sale of firearms or shooting-related products.
Contributions to the NRA from the firearms industry since 2005 total between $14.7 million and $38.9 million.”
So, if in your mind 74% is “virtually all” and the NRA gets at the very least 80% of its funding from “other than gun industry” wouldn't that prove that the NRA can't be a gun industry corporate shill because it gets “virtually all” its funding from “other than gun industry sources”?