Doesn't bother me that advocacy groups have corporate sponsors, they all do. Makes sense, since the industry that springs from a lifestyle or vocation or right has an industry that supports it. The big dollars for advocacy come from business. It is up to an individual joining a group to ascertain that it is not under undue influence from corporations, if it is, then one make a choice to not join, join and suck it up, or form one's own group or join an alternative one. It's called personal responsibility.

Very well put Tx!

I can't imagine any industry or trade that doesn't have some sort of organization surrounding them. Most everyone has an organization that has conventions, meetings and other functions that allow people to share information, disseminate information to customers and potential customers and that sort of thing. That industry's organization very likely also lobbies in Washington. So what?

The reason that some people despise the NRA, is because they don't happen to politically agree with them. This is America. People are free to agree or disagree. I am not an NRA member, but I certainly haven't found much of anything to disagree with them about. When someone brings forth evidence that they are doing something immoral, unethical or illegal. I will reevaluate. Until then, they are SUPPOSED to be free to do and say what they want within the limits of the law.

__________________
2001 SLK 320 six speed manual
2014 Porsche Cayenne six speed manual

Annoy a Liberal, Read the Constitution

Has someone here advocated censoring the NRA?
I must have missed that.

__________________
You're a daisy if you do.
__________________________________
84 Euro 240D 4spd. 220.5k sold
04 Honda Element AWD
1985 F150 XLT 4x4, 351W with 270k miles, hay hauler
1997 Suzuki Sidekick 4x4
1993 Toyota 4wd Pickup 226K and counting

Hmm.... I also missed any advocation of advocation.

BTW, you must have missed post #23. It wasn't advocating censorship, but it was not exactly an endorsement of the NRA.

__________________
2001 SLK 320 six speed manual
2014 Porsche Cayenne six speed manual

Annoy a Liberal, Read the Constitution

ot characterize NRA as a political organization. True, I haven't read "American Rifleman" more than a few times per year since I was last a member. Most of the articles in the mag are technical firearms articles and some product reviews.
They don't give a damn about most politics, which is why they like Harry Reed and vice-versa.

Until then, they are SUPPOSED to be free to do and say what they want within the limits of the law.

Your words. Nobody here has suggested otherwise. I didn't miss post 23, in fact I agree with it insofar as it pertains to the modern incarnation of the NRA. Surely you're not falling into the closed-loop mindset that anyone who dares question the NRA or it's utterly altruistic () motives is by definition anti-2A?

That would be pretty narrow minded.

__________________
You're a daisy if you do.
__________________________________
84 Euro 240D 4spd. 220.5k sold
04 Honda Element AWD
1985 F150 XLT 4x4, 351W with 270k miles, hay hauler
1997 Suzuki Sidekick 4x4
1993 Toyota 4wd Pickup 226K and counting

If you can't add up the posts to understand the situation, then I am unable to help you.

Best of luck.

__________________
2001 SLK 320 six speed manual
2014 Porsche Cayenne six speed manual

Annoy a Liberal, Read the Constitution

Your posts lead one to believe the extra effort to explain in full could help. If you take it slowly and sound out the words it might be easier. That way instead of getting fixated on a minor sub-current point such your fetish regarding the NRA and who influences their positions you might evengrt to the point of understanding the substance of the response which was addressing your question as to what is "the implication" contained in the OP and links, which seems to have eluded you thus far.

But if you still feel the need to beat your "NRA is completely bought and sold" drum, I can improvise with that tune.

So in your mind the mere fact that the NRA has corporate donors is prima facie evidence of being "completely bought and sold" and "The NRA will always act in a way to protect the interests of the gun and ammo manufacturers. Not their rank and file members."?

Is there a minimum number of corporate donors neccessary to "completely buy and sell" an organization? Is there some threshold of funding percentage by corporate donors that triggers the "completely bought and sold" claim?

I don't ever expect to convince you, but nevertheless it is true.

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

I have been to gun shows in several states and I have never seen one where this mythical cash and carry that the media is talking about happens. Most venders at gun shows are stores or guys that have internet based stores that sell out of gunbroker.com. Which means they are FFL's.

Pretty much its no different than buying one from a gun store.

The only time you can buy without any paperwork is from an individual walking around, but again that varies by state. In CT they still call it in regardless.

__________________
2006 CL500
2009 C300 4matic
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

You have no evidence to support your contention, without which it is nothing more than an unsupported opinion, so it is unlikely that you could convince anyone, except of course someone like elchivito.

If a corporate donor's list isn't evidence, what anyone who disagrees with you will always have is "an unsupported position". In fact, your assertion that the NRA is NOT a shill for the gun industry is also unsupported by evidence. LaPierre showed his hand this time. What he called for in response to Sandy Hook tells the tale. In essence: "buy more guns".

You sure do take this personally. It's interesting and a bit sad how quickly you jump to the insults. Telling Tom he couldn't convince anyone, except of course "someone like" me.

__________________
You're a daisy if you do.
__________________________________
84 Euro 240D 4spd. 220.5k sold
04 Honda Element AWD
1985 F150 XLT 4x4, 351W with 270k miles, hay hauler
1997 Suzuki Sidekick 4x4
1993 Toyota 4wd Pickup 226K and counting

I think he could be "billybob" (now in a tuxedo) trying pretty hard NOT to insult people, keeping in mind that old habits oftentimes die hard.

__________________
1991 560 SEC AMG, 199k <---- 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV ...

1995 E 420, 170k "The Red Plum" (sold)

2015 BMW 535i xdrive awd Stage 1 DINAN, 6k, <----364 hp

1967 Mercury Cougar, 49k

2013 Jaguar XF, 20k <----340 hp Supercharged, All Wheel Drive (sold)

Silk purses and sows' ears come to mind.

__________________
You're a daisy if you do.
__________________________________
84 Euro 240D 4spd. 220.5k sold
04 Honda Element AWD
1985 F150 XLT 4x4, 351W with 270k miles, hay hauler
1997 Suzuki Sidekick 4x4
1993 Toyota 4wd Pickup 226K and counting

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.